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.

185 results for “house property”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,791 Delhi2,338 Bangalore819 Chennai528 Jaipur517 Hyderabad442 Ahmedabad356 Pune313 Chandigarh268 Kolkata266 Indore201 Cochin185 Surat119 Rajkot110 Visakhapatnam101 Raipur99 Nagpur92 Amritsar89 SC81 Lucknow80 Patna69 Agra57 Jodhpur41 Cuttack39 Guwahati35 Allahabad18 Dehradun18 Jabalpur12 Varanasi12 Ranchi8 Panaji7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 25082 Section 153A45 Section 143(3)38 Addition to Income35 Section 6934 Section 54F29 Section 13219 Section 143(2)16 House Property16

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 185 · Page 1 of 10

...

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

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 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

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

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

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 173/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 40Section 57

5,55,032/- as deduction against the rental income. The AO was of the view that amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was assessable under the head income from house property. Therefore, the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,45,472/- was disallowed, however deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 3,00,000/- was granted which resulted in addition

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 174/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 40Section 57

5,55,032/- as deduction against the rental income. The AO was of the view that amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was assessable under the head income from house property. Therefore, the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,45,472/- was disallowed, however deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 3,00,000/- was granted which resulted in addition

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [PAN:AGNPM9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of order dated 25.11.2022 by the Commissioner

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathi Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 12Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24(1)(b)

house property, income from which is assessable u/s.22 r/ws. 23, for want of evidence. The basis for the disallowance for the two immediately preceding years, on the other hand, was a footnote in the assessee’s returns stating of non-claim of interest inasmuch as no interest on the unsecured loans of the Directors had been allowed by the company

PUTHIRI VINCENT THOMAS ,THODUPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 246/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Puthiri Vincent Thomas .......... Appellant Xxiii/249 A, Puthiri House Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki 685584 [Pan: Agwpv7187P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 64

house property’ assessed 50% of income from property. Thus he made addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the entire property was settled to two sons and daughter- in-law. The share of income derived from this was offered to tax in the hands of the two sons

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

ITA 230/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.V.Swarnalatha, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80C

house property and also not granting deduction under section 80C on the grounds that the deduction was not claimed in the original return and the revised return was beyond the time under 139(5

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