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.

74 results for “house property”+ Section 151clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi746Mumbai514Karnataka482Bangalore240Jaipur181Chandigarh141Chennai117Ahmedabad98Hyderabad81Pune79Cochin74Visakhapatnam71Telangana55Calcutta53Indore53Raipur44Lucknow41Amritsar39Kolkata38Rajkot36Guwahati25Agra20Nagpur17Surat14SC11Cuttack8Rajasthan7Patna6Jabalpur5Allahabad4Jodhpur3Ranchi3Dehradun2Orissa2Varanasi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250114Addition to Income10Section 69C8Section 153C6Section 1326Section 153A6Capital Gains6Section 143(3)5House Property5

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

House, Central Circle-1, Mekkadambu – P.O. Ernakulam. Muvattupuzha. PAN:AAFPE 4655 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri T. M. Sreedharan Respondent by Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 04/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dated 31/03/2016

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

Section 694
Section 56(2)(ii)4
Business Income4

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

House Property. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is just legal and proper and therefore, these appeals should be dismissed. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

House Property. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is just legal and proper and therefore, these appeals should be dismissed. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

House Property. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is just legal and proper and therefore, these appeals should be dismissed. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

House Property. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is just legal and proper and therefore, these appeals should be dismissed. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct

SHAJU NINAN JOHN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 688/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma K, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 17/12/2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appeal, even as it projects several grounds, making in fact the Grounds before the first appellate authority as part thereof vide its last Gd. 4, raises a single issue, i.e., the eligibility or otherwise

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 696/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69Section 69C

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69Section 69C

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 697/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69Section 69C

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 695/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69Section 69C

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

RAMLA HAMEED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the Assessing

ITA 393/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 48

house on the said land without engaging any external contractor. The construction was self-managed and funded by the assessee. The assessee supported the cost of construction claim by furnishing a valuation certificate from a registered valuer estimating the construction cost at Rs.57,00,000/- .The assessee further argued that the valuation of the property by the Departmental Valuation Officer

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5 I.T.A. Nos.374-380/Coch/2019 381 to 384/coch/2019 3.1 It was the case of the assessee that income from house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting of purchase and resale, though profitable, are clearly outside the domain of adventures in the nature of trade. In deciding the character of such transactions several factors are treated

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting of purchase and resale, though profitable, are clearly outside the domain of adventures in the nature of trade. In deciding the character of such transactions several factors are treated

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting of purchase and resale, though profitable, are clearly outside the domain of adventures in the nature of trade. In deciding the character of such transactions several factors are treated

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

151) “The Supreme Court distinguished an investment from an adventure in the nature of trade as under:- (page 609 of 35 ITR).” (Page No. 154) "Cases of realization of investments consisting of purchase and resale, though profitable, are clearly outside the domain of adventures in the nature of trade. In deciding the character of such transactions several factors are treated

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA
Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

section (3) thereof, would have no bearing on the merits of the case. The decision by the first appellate authority for that year, as for the current year, cannot bind this Tribunal, so that the matter cannot be regarded as covered, and would require being adjudicated by it on merits. The same would though be relevant and taken into account

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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