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.

3 results for “house property”+ Section 313clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka457Mumbai361Delhi229Bangalore169Ahmedabad74Kolkata67Jaipur42Chennai39Calcutta38Hyderabad28Pune27Chandigarh26Telangana18Nagpur17Surat12Indore11Patna9Cuttack7Visakhapatnam7Raipur6SC3Cochin3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Agra2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 54F4Section 2633Addition to Income3Section 143(3)2Section 115B2Section 2502Section 80C2Natural Justice2

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

313 ITR 65. In this case it was held as follows: “In support of his submission, Mr. Saparkar has relied on the decision of this court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewelers (2003) 259 ITR 502 wherein it is held that the finding of the fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee had produced relevant material

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

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

ITA 547/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

property habitable. Whereas, the Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid claim holding that the addition cost was nothing but expenses incurred for renovation/improvement. We find that in appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had also rejected the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F of the Act in respect of the aforesaid addition cost by placing reliance upon the judgment