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.

83 results for “house property”+ Section 156(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi571Karnataka452Mumbai357Bangalore174Hyderabad135Chennai109Ahmedabad91Cochin83Jaipur77Calcutta53Chandigarh52Kolkata36Raipur35Indore34Telangana32Pune23Visakhapatnam19Lucknow16Cuttack14Nagpur11SC11Surat10Agra9Amritsar7Varanasi5Rajasthan5Jodhpur4Rajkot3Ranchi2Orissa2Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250114Addition to Income17Unexplained Investment12Capital Gains12Section 143(3)8Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Section 271(1)(c)7Section 132

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

5
Section 153A5
Business Income4
Section 693
17 Jan 2019
AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

property of the partnership firm in which the assessee was also a partner. On the other hand, the assessee had transferred 87.990 cents of land belonging to him in favour of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000 on 14/08/1998. The business carried on by the assessee was continued as a going concern. The assessee

M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. C. V. Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR
Section 201(1)

156 ITR 127 (Raj) 2) Smt. Kala Rani v. CIT 130 ITR 321 (Punj & Har). Further, as per the Income-tax Act, the land and the building are 3) separate assets as per the following decisions. Therefore, if an employee had availed housing loan; he is eligible for deduction for the interest paid. CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha

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

3. M.G. Kavu Property This property was purchased in the year 2010 with the intention of long term investment and enjoyment of the property. In order to mobilize funds for the medicine business and pay off liabilities, this property was also sold in the year 2012. 9.2 It was submitted that from the facts of the present case

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

3. M.G. Kavu Property This property was purchased in the year 2010 with the intention of long term investment and enjoyment of the property. In order to mobilize funds for the medicine business and pay off liabilities, this property was also sold in the year 2012. 9.2 It was submitted that from the facts of the present case

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

3. M.G. Kavu Property This property was purchased in the year 2010 with the intention of long term investment and enjoyment of the property. In order to mobilize funds for the medicine business and pay off liabilities, this property was also sold in the year 2012. 9.2 It was submitted that from the facts of the present case

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

3. M.G. Kavu Property This property was purchased in the year 2010 with the intention of long term investment and enjoyment of the property. In order to mobilize funds for the medicine business and pay off liabilities, this property was also sold in the year 2012. 9.2 It was submitted that from the facts of the present case

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

House, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Mathewsons building, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:ACHPM 3973H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri A.S.Narayanamoorthy, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15/01/2018 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against different

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

House, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Mathewsons building, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:ACHPM 3973H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri A.S.Narayanamoorthy, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15/01/2018 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against different

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made