Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

332 results for “house property”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,539 Delhi4,521 Bangalore1,632 Chennai1,360 Ahmedabad911 Jaipur885 Kolkata874 Karnataka830 Hyderabad783 Pune682 Chandigarh465 Surat352 Indore332 Cochin332 Visakhapatnam297 Telangana220 Amritsar186 Rajkot164 Raipur139 Lucknow123 Nagpur121 Cuttack117 Agra82 SC80 Patna72 Calcutta70 Jodhpur59 Guwahati51 Dehradun38 Allahabad37 Varanasi25 Rajasthan24 Kerala22 Ranchi20 Jabalpur18 Panaji11 Orissa9 Punjab & Haryana5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 Himachal Pradesh2 Andhra Pradesh2 Gauhati2 J&K1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26369 Section 153A55 Section 143(3)55 Addition to Income41 Section 54F38 Section 25027 Deduction22 Disallowance22 Section 143(2)21 Section 132

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property and business income respectively, and read as under

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 332 · Page 1 of 17

...

20

ITAT Cochin

25 Sept 2023

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property and business income respectively, and read as under

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

5. The CIT (Appeals) thoroughly went wrong in holding that the assessee is not entitled for relief under section 54F of the Act for the reason that the assessee owns two residential properties ABROAD. The finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the conditions in the proviso to section 54F of the IT Act are not satisfied by the assessee

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 613/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

5. The CIT (Appeals) thoroughly went wrong in holding that the assessee is not entitled for relief under section 54F of the Act for the reason that the assessee owns two residential properties ABROAD. The finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the conditions in the proviso to section 54F of the IT Act are not satisfied by the assessee

SMT.MERCY GEORGE L/H OF SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, , KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 511/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Cherian, FCAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

house property within a period of two years after the date of transfer. Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 54 would also make it clear that no provision is made by the statute that the assessee should utilise the amount which he obtained by way of sale consideration for the purpose of meeting the cost of the new asset

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 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

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 within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

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

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

SANATANA DHARMA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 278/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 279/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

House Property” was carried forward. 4. Against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act on the basis that the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act are applicable for the assessment year 2017-18 onwards, and therefore cannot

PALLATH NAFEESA,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, TIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 118/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 194ASection 197Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [PAN: ALIPN9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shaji Paulose, CA Respondent by: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

5. The AO further found that the new property purchased by the assessee consists of property being TC Nos. 25/1726, 25/1727, 25/1728 & 25/1729 for total area of 362.32 sq. mts out of which only property being TC No. 25/1729 having area of 70 sq. mts. is residential property. 3 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 6. Based on the above observation

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

Section 54F and all sales can be reinvested only 1 House Property, which is totally opposed to the established law. (vi) Further the case laws relied upon by the AO/CIT(A) are completely different from theAppellant's case and relate to a single sale of Long Term Capital Asset. In the Appellant': case there are 2 separate transactions of sale

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

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 dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra Private Limited

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

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 dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra Private Limited

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

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 dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra Private Limited

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

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 dated 1st day of March, 2010 executed between Warriers Hospital and Panchakarma Centre and Dhathri Ayurkendra Private Limited