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.

31 results for “house property”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai959Delhi928Karnataka455Jaipur267Ahmedabad219Bangalore181Chennai134Chandigarh82Indore82Pune82Kolkata81Hyderabad69Visakhapatnam56Calcutta50Raipur40Lucknow35Cochin31Surat30Nagpur29Rajkot25Guwahati23Amritsar19Agra10Telangana9Cuttack8SC8Allahabad5Rajasthan5Patna4Ranchi4Jodhpur3Dehradun2Panaji1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income30Section 271(1)(c)13Unexplained Investment12Section 143(3)10Section 2639Penalty8Section 153A6Section 153C6Section 54F6

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

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Section 685
Section 139(1)5
Survey u/s 133A4

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

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

property which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice-u/s 153C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c). In reply to the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee submitted that he had disclosed the income as his income in spite of the same pertaining

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

House, Ward 2(2), Kallekundur Road, Vettikattiri Post, Thrissur. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531. PAN : ECBPK 8337R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Ramnath, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of CIT (Appeals

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

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

Section 271(1)(c)

property and if a proper enquiry was made the Department could have found out this and instead of doing this the entire alleged purchase money was attributed to the Appellant and made heavy assessments on him. The Appellant should have given a benefit of doubt and exonerated from the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) as this

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

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

House rent of Rs.3500, total Rs.71500/- from Chitra Multi Speciality Hospital, Pandalam.” In our opinion, the undisclosed income of Rs.8,58,000/- considered by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is to be treated as ‘income from profession’ instead of ‘salary income’ and out of this, the assessee is entitled to 25% towards expenditure

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: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

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

House, Mekkadampu(PO) Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam- 682316. To, The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 Thodupuzha. Dear Sir/Madam Sub: Confirmation of gift to my sister Mithra Paul I hereby confirm the following facts. 1. I am enclosing a copy of legal heirship certificate issued upon demise of my father, Sri. P.V. Paulose (certificate dated 24-07-2001). The legal heirs

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

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

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

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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 50/COCH/2014[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 ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

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

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

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

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para