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.

325 results for “house property”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,473 Delhi4,483 Bangalore1,627 Chennai1,354 Ahmedabad907 Jaipur886 Kolkata859 Karnataka824 Hyderabad782 Pune673 Chandigarh464 Surat349 Indore332 Cochin325 Visakhapatnam297 Telangana219 Amritsar179 Rajkot163 Raipur140 Lucknow122 Nagpur120 Cuttack117 Agra86 SC79 Patna73 Calcutta71 Jodhpur59 Guwahati48 Allahabad37 Dehradun32 Varanasi25 Rajasthan24 Kerala21 Ranchi19 Jabalpur18 Panaji11 Orissa9 Punjab & Haryana5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 Andhra Pradesh2 Gauhati2 Himachal Pradesh2 J&K1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26363 Section 153A55 Section 143(3)50 Section 54F39 Addition to Income37 Section 153C29 Section 13229 Section 25026 Disallowance24

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

6 (now 5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property and business income respectively, and read

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 325 · Page 1 of 17

...

Section 143(2)19

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

6 (now 5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property and business income respectively, and read

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

section 54 F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) the property in “Shobha City” is bought fully out of the funds of assessee’s husband and the assessee ITA Nos.613, 566/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 14 has invested the sale proceeds of the land in property

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

section 54 F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) the property in “Shobha City” is bought fully out of the funds of assessee’s husband and the assessee ITA Nos.613, 566/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 14 has invested the sale proceeds of the land in property

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)

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 54 of the I.T.Act does not prohibit the assessee to raise funds or borrow money for investment in the house property

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

section shall apply where — (a) the assessee, — Page 6 of 10 (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

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” instead of setting off the same against the income added under section 69 of the Act by placing reliance upon the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that the amendment, whereby the set-off of any loss is denied against the income, inter-alia, referred to in section

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) 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, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

6 lakhs. On 21/10/1998, the assessee executed and registered sale deed, transferring his right over the said landed property which was introduced as capital in the form of M/s. Kavitha Theatre for a consideration of Rs.2.75 crores. However, the DDI(Inv.)-II, Ernakulam found that the sale consideration of the said property was Rs.6.5 crores. Thereafter, DDI(Inv.-II), Ernakulam