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.

6 results for “house property”+ Section 14A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,027Delhi479Kolkata195Ahmedabad177Chennai134Bangalore124Karnataka115Pune62Jaipur54Hyderabad43Raipur37Indore23Visakhapatnam22Cuttack16Chandigarh12Amritsar8Rajkot8Cochin6Guwahati6Surat6Varanasi4Telangana4Lucknow4SC4Jodhpur3Calcutta3Nagpur3Panaji2

Key Topics

Section 14A21Section 2636Disallowance5Section 143(3)3Section 56(2)(viib)3Section 323House Property3Depreciation3Addition to Income3

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed
Section 36(1)(viii)2
Deduction2
ITAT Cochin
19 May 2020
AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.10,10,99,840/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D towards expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion, a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.10,10,99,840/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D towards expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion, a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

House Vs. Ward 1(3) Kandanisseri Trichur. Thrissur – 680 102. PAN : AAICS5338J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Bomi Daruwala, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2019 Date of Hearing : 15.10.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 29.03.2019 passed