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.

77 results for “house property”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai911Delhi715Karnataka463Bangalore378Kolkata200Ahmedabad198Jaipur163Chennai140Indore105Chandigarh100Hyderabad91Pune91Visakhapatnam85Cochin77Calcutta53Raipur49Surat47Amritsar32Rajkot32Cuttack26Patna26Lucknow22Guwahati20Agra20Jodhpur12Nagpur12SC10Telangana9Dehradun9Jabalpur8Rajasthan8Kerala2Ranchi2Allahabad2Panaji2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 263129Section 143(3)61Addition to Income31Section 37(1)26Section 6823Revision u/s 26320Section 115B18Deduction18Disallowance18Section 80P

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

Section 263 of the Act and it cannot be held to be justified. 4.9 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has exploited the immovable property by way of commercial activities and resultant income, utilization of space for providing shopping facilities to customers is also a commercial activity and such activities have been held to be business activity vide

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

14
Section 153C12
Capital Gains11
ITAT Cochin
20 Sept 2019
AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

263 as bad in law. 6.1 In the present case, at the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for details from the assessee and the assessee has replied vide two letters dated 27/08/2016 and 23/08/2016 which contained the following details: From, Mithra Paul 8/243, Pottayail House Mekkadampu (PO) Muvattapuzha Ernakulam- 682316 To, 8 I.T.A. No 421/Coch/2019

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 u/s 263

GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 216/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

property are not payments in the nature of rent within the meaning of section 194 I of the Act.". Hence , it was submitted that the finding of the Commissioner that the one-time lease premium was towards use of land was not correct and hence revision order should be quashed 4.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the one time

SMT.THULASI SUBASH,THRIKKAKKARA vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

ITA 286/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Smt. Thulasi Subash The Income Tax Officer 6/460A, Chellam Ward-1(5), Range 1 Kollamkudimugal Vs. Non Corporate Thrikkakara Kochi Kochi 682021 Pan – Ctaps0080B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Savio George, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

Section 263 of the Act wherein in para 7 of his order the Pr. CIT had held as under: - “It appears from the records that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a proper enquiry or verification whether the transfer of capital assets was a residential house or not, and investment made in the new house property

SMT.T. LEKHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE PR CIT(CENTRAL) , COCHIN

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

ITA 627/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

MR.ASHOK THANKAPPAN NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT( CENTRAL), COCHIN

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

ITA 629/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

SMT.T. LEKHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE PR CIT(CENTRAL) , COCHIN

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

ITA 628/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

MR.ASHOK THANKAPPAN NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT( CENTRAL), COCHIN

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

ITA 630/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

JOY PULLURUTHIKARY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 47/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am Shri Joy Pulluruthikary Joseph Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Mullackal House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 Pan – Ahdpj9224H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Roy Jose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54C

House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 PAN – AHDPJ9224H Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Shri V. Roy Jose, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per: George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed

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)

263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 5 & 6 of the assessees in all the appeals are dismissed. 6.2 On merits of common issue raised by the assessees in Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4, a similar issue came up for our consideration in the case of Muthoot Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another

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)

263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 5 & 6 of the assessees in all the appeals are dismissed. 6.2 On merits of common issue raised by the assessees in Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4, a similar issue came up for our consideration in the case of Muthoot Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another

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)

263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 5 & 6 of the assessees in all the appeals are dismissed. 6.2 On merits of common issue raised by the assessees in Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4, a similar issue came up for our consideration in the case of Muthoot Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another

REENAZ PROPERTIES P. LTD,EDAPALLY, KOCHI vs. THE PR CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 137/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekar Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 50C

Properties Pvt.Ltd. 4. The CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act for the reason that the Assessing Officer had not considered the impact of section 43CA of the I.T.Act. The CIT was of the view that the transfer of an asset (other than a capital asset) would be governed by the provisions of section 43CA of the I.T.Act

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC), that a show cause notice is not a concomitant of the proceedings u/s. 263. The whole premise of a notice is to put the assessee to notice of the proceedings under section 263 having been initiated against it and, two, afford an opportunity of hearing

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

house property and the balance amount of Rs.5,28,000/- was declared as income from toddy trading activity and therefore the provisions of section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 263

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

house property and the balance amount of Rs.5,28,000/- was declared as income from toddy trading activity and therefore the provisions of section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 263

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 Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that