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.

298 results for “house property”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,987Delhi4,241Bangalore1,567Chennai1,205Ahmedabad840Jaipur838Karnataka819Kolkata786Hyderabad753Pune641Chandigarh449Surat335Indore322Cochin298Visakhapatnam288Telangana219Amritsar172Rajkot159Raipur138Lucknow114Cuttack113Nagpur112Agra79SC75Patna67Calcutta66Jodhpur59Guwahati47Allahabad37Dehradun32Varanasi25Rajasthan24Kerala20Ranchi15Jabalpur14Orissa9Panaji9Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 25062Addition to Income47Section 143(3)38Section 26331Section 153C29Section 54F25Section 153A24Deduction19Disallowance19Section 80G

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

Showing 1–20 of 298 · Page 1 of 15

...
16
House Property15
Exemption14

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

8. The ld AR submitted that prior to the AY 2015-16 ( prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014 to section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act), when a claim was made by an assessee under section 54 or 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in a residential house ABROAD

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

8. The ld AR submitted that prior to the AY 2015-16 ( prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014 to section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act), when a claim was made by an assessee under section 54 or 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in a residential house ABROAD

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

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

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

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” against the income assessed under section 69 of the Act. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8

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 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,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,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

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

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 in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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 in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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 in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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 in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

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 in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that