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.

169 results for “house property”+ Section 2(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,001Delhi2,755Bangalore1,029Karnataka707Jaipur610Chennai584Ahmedabad535Hyderabad462Kolkata461Pune319Chandigarh295Indore237Surat207Visakhapatnam170Cochin169Telangana159Amritsar119Rajkot104Raipur93Lucknow84Nagpur68Cuttack66SC59Calcutta57Patna42Agra36Jodhpur32Guwahati29Rajasthan19Allahabad18Varanasi14Dehradun9Kerala9Orissa7Panaji6Jabalpur6Ranchi4Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 25093Section 143(3)43Section 26338Addition to Income29Section 153C27Section 37(1)26Section 115B16Section 6814Section 153A11

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 75/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Showing 1–20 of 169 · Page 1 of 9

...
Disallowance11
Deduction9
Unexplained Investment5
ITA 74/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 69/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 72/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 70/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 71/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 73/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

30 to 36 of the Act. In this case, the taxpayer admittedly borrowed funds for enhancing the working capital or the purpose of money lending business. Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business falls within the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the purpose of business

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

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 616/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further, the assessee filed additional evidence as follows: 1. Lease agreement dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra (India) Private Limited regarding Hospital assets located at Ernakulam. 2. Lease Agreement

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 460/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further, the assessee filed additional evidence as follows: 1. Lease agreement dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra (India) Private Limited regarding Hospital assets located at Ernakulam. 2. Lease Agreement

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 615/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further, the assessee filed additional evidence as follows: 1. Lease agreement dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra (India) Private Limited regarding Hospital assets located at Ernakulam. 2. Lease Agreement

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 461/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 24Section 30Section 31Section 32Section 38Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57

30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38”. 4.2 Further, the assessee filed additional evidence as follows: 1. Lease agreement dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra (India) Private Limited regarding Hospital assets located at Ernakulam. 2. Lease Agreement

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

30, 32, 33 & 34/Coch/2019 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 31 & 35/Coch/2019 :By Jose Thomas & Gracy Babu :AY 2009-10 7. The common ground in ITA No. 31/Coch/2019 in the case of Shri Jose Thomas and ITA No. 35/Coch/2019 in the case of Smt. Gracy Babu for the assessment year 2009-10 is with regard to assessment of extra fee collected from

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

30, 32, 33 & 34/Coch/2019 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 31 & 35/Coch/2019 :By Jose Thomas & Gracy Babu :AY 2009-10 7. The common ground in ITA No. 31/Coch/2019 in the case of Shri Jose Thomas and ITA No. 35/Coch/2019 in the case of Smt. Gracy Babu for the assessment year 2009-10 is with regard to assessment of extra fee collected from

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

30, 32, 33 & 34/Coch/2019 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 31 & 35/Coch/2019 :By Jose Thomas & Gracy Babu :AY 2009-10 7. The common ground in ITA No. 31/Coch/2019 in the case of Shri Jose Thomas and ITA No. 35/Coch/2019 in the case of Smt. Gracy Babu for the assessment year 2009-10 is with regard to assessment of extra fee collected from

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

30, 32, 33 & 34/Coch/2019 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 31 & 35/Coch/2019 :By Jose Thomas & Gracy Babu :AY 2009-10 7. The common ground in ITA No. 31/Coch/2019 in the case of Shri Jose Thomas and ITA No. 35/Coch/2019 in the case of Smt. Gracy Babu for the assessment year 2009-10 is with regard to assessment of extra fee collected from

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

30, 32, 33 & 34/Coch/2019 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 31 & 35/Coch/2019 :By Jose Thomas & Gracy Babu :AY 2009-10 7. The common ground in ITA No. 31/Coch/2019 in the case of Shri Jose Thomas and ITA No. 35/Coch/2019 in the case of Smt. Gracy Babu for the assessment year 2009-10 is with regard to assessment of extra fee collected from