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.

145 results for “house property”+ Section 70(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,622Mumbai1,335Bangalore589Karnataka587Chennai384Jaipur378Ahmedabad334Hyderabad286Chandigarh209Kolkata188Surat175Pune147Cochin145Indore124Telangana91Visakhapatnam75Raipur68Calcutta54Cuttack51Lucknow49Rajkot44Amritsar38Nagpur34SC27Patna21Dehradun12Guwahati11Varanasi10Agra10Rajasthan8Jodhpur7Orissa7Allahabad4Kerala3Jabalpur2Ranchi2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 25082Addition to Income37Section 143(3)35Section 37(1)26Section 26315Section 153A14Capital Gains12Disallowance11Section 13210

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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 Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...
Deduction9
Section 2(24)(vi)8
Section 488
17 Jan 2019
AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

House, Ernakulam. Ramallur, Kothamangalam. The Assistant Commissioner 8. Shri Jose Mathew, of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Ernakulam. Kothamangalam. Assessee by Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/11/2018 Date of pronouncement 17/01/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee

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

3 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 6. Based on the above observation, the AO treated the land value and value of one of property as long term capital assets and accordingly long-term capital gain was computed on the same after index cost of acquisition and further provided exemption under section 54 of the Act on account of investment in residential property

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)

3 nos. of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act as well as a show cause noticedated 19/02/2022. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings held that the assessee had failed to prove the source of credits in its bank account. Further the AO was of the view that 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)

3 nos. of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act as well as a show cause noticedated 19/02/2022. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings held that the assessee had failed to prove the source of credits in its bank account. Further the AO was of the view that the assessee

THE ACIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

70,72,750/- and out of this Rs. 1,23,99,250/- has been handed over to the college/trust in those only and the gross amount of collection solely belonged to the Trust/college. Hence, the assessment of donation in the hands of trustees was therefore not in order. 6.3 It was submitted that mere receipt of money would not constitute