BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

67 results for “house property”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi724Mumbai672Karnataka479Bangalore230Jaipur192Hyderabad129Chennai120Kolkata103Ahmedabad90Pune70Cochin67Chandigarh57Telangana53Calcutta50Rajkot47Raipur45Lucknow38Indore34Visakhapatnam21Patna21Amritsar20Nagpur17SC15Surat12Allahabad9Agra7Rajasthan6Jodhpur5Guwahati4Kerala2Orissa2Panaji2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Dehradun1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250115Section 153A21Section 143(2)14Section 139(4)8Section 143(3)7Section 1327Section 143(1)7Section 132(4)7Addition to Income2

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

Natural Justice2

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

SINI NOUSHAD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144A

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 15.02.2023. The assessee has qua the instant appeal also filed a stay application. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI vs. SAMAIRA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle - 2, Ernakulam .......... Appellant Vs. Samaira Properties Pvt. Ltd .......... Respondent Samaira House, Kra-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [Pan: Abbcs6500L] Assessee By: Shri Anoop V.Francis, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anoop V.Francis, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144

House, KRA-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [PAN: ABBCS6500L] Assessee by: Shri Anoop V.Francis, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

P. K JAYAPRAKASAN,VALAPPAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Panakkal Kumaran Jayaprakasan Panakkal House Valappad Beach Valapad Cit(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala Pan No : Afrpj2700A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : N O N E Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Thrissur Dated 12.08.2020 For The Ay 2015- 16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 2 Of 5 Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 3 Of 5

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 69

House Valappad Beach Valapad CIT(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala PAN NO : AFRPJ2700A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 506/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 456/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 504/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed