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.

129 results for “house property”+ Section 43clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,988Mumbai1,714Bangalore665Karnataka616Chennai393Ahmedabad370Jaipur362Hyderabad276Kolkata252Chandigarh225Pune164Indore153Surat146Cochin129Telangana124Rajkot77Visakhapatnam73Raipur68Amritsar56Calcutta55Nagpur48Cuttack43Lucknow40SC39Patna30Guwahati25Agra24Allahabad17Jodhpur13Rajasthan10Kerala8Dehradun7Orissa7Varanasi4Panaji2Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Punjab & Haryana1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 250100Section 153C40Section 143(3)32Addition to Income29Section 37(1)26Section 13216Section 26315Section 14A14Section 153A12

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

Deduction11
Disallowance11
Unexplained Investment9

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 267/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54F

property is also eligible for deduction u/s.54F of the Act and the 4 Sri.Reji Krishnan. other expenses incurred in respect of the transactions are also reasonable and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We heard the arguments of both sides

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)

section 201(1) with regard to short deduction of tax at source in respect of the following employees along with the reasons thereon: Page 4 of 6 Excess Interest S.N Name of the Reasons given by the AO deduction Employee Housing Loan Interest not allowable 1,43,553 1 Usha since property

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

property for construction of house/flats Total 50,98,18,515 8.6. From the above discussions, it is clear that the said loans falls under the eligible business of providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development, development of infrastructure facility in India 10 I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 and development of housing in India and hence is eligible for deduction u/s.36

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

property for construction of house/flats Total 50,98,18,515 8.6. From the above discussions, it is clear that the said loans falls under the eligible business of providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development, development of infrastructure facility in India 10 I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 and development of housing in India and hence is eligible for deduction u/s.36

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

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

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

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

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

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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

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

ITA 507/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)

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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)

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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)

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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

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

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

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

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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

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

ITA 304/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)

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

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)

43,536) in restaurant sales and Rs. 15,18,078 (55,85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant

M/S.ABAD BUILDERS,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tinu Anto, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 80Section 80I

property, but are only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), and in the case of Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. and others (supra), the ownership

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

property at Alungal and Thallassery and also for renovating the house at Alungal and Thalassery. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the entire consideration paid by the assessee as undisclosed investment of the assessee and assessed u/s. 69 of I.T. Act. As the document was registered in the name of assessee’s mother, the assessment would be made in her name

M/S.THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, COCHIN

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

ITA 508/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

43,68,21,370.00 Perumbavoor (Part) 8026 Perumbavoor Evening 38,09,30,965.00 Perumbavoor (part) 8026 Kalamassery 15,50,70,715.00 Thrikkakara North 420 Medical College branch 7,75,44,482.00 Thrikkara North 420 Ramamangalam 2,06,19,939.00 Ramamangalam 9999 4.3 The ld DR present was duly heard. 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

THEACIT, COCHIN vs. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 522/COCH/2015[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2017

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

43,68,21,370.00 Perumbavoor (Part) 8026 Perumbavoor Evening 38,09,30,965.00 Perumbavoor (part) 8026 Kalamassery 15,50,70,715.00 Thrikkakara North 420 Medical College branch 7,75,44,482.00 Thrikkara North 420 Ramamangalam 2,06,19,939.00 Ramamangalam 9999 4.3 The ld DR present was duly heard. 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material