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.

231 results for “house property”+ Section 9(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,191Delhi2,779Bangalore1,250Chennai869Karnataka689Jaipur578Ahmedabad529Kolkata479Hyderabad422Pune295Chandigarh295Cochin231Visakhapatnam228Indore223Telangana191Surat125Amritsar124Rajkot113Raipur107Lucknow90Nagpur84Cuttack80SC69Agra58Calcutta58Allahabad35Patna33Guwahati32Jodhpur29Varanasi23Rajasthan19Kerala16Dehradun9Ranchi8Jabalpur8Orissa7Panaji5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 25070Section 26342Addition to Income39Section 143(3)38Section 153A17Section 80G16Section 10(37)15Deduction13Disallowance13Section 143(2)

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 231 · Page 1 of 12

...
12
Section 13212
Exemption10
ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 69/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 71/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 70/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 72/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 73/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 74/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 75/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: "7.... We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

v) is applicable. 6.3 The Ld. DR submitted that the argument put forth by the assessee that since the assessee is not “deemed to be an assessee in default" under the first proviso to sub.section (1) of Section 201, then the mischief of section 40 (a) (ia) is not applicable to it, is not acceptable. She quoted the amended portion

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

v) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for the construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; and 9.2 Here it is quite apparent that a Housing Finance Company will be entitled to the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) from income generated out of the business of providing long-term finance for the construction

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

v) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for the construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; and 9.2 Here it is quite apparent that a Housing Finance Company will be entitled to the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) from income generated out of the business of providing long-term finance for the construction

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, Ward 2(2), Kallekundur Road, Vettikattiri Post, Thrissur. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531. PAN : ECBPK 8337R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Ramnath, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of CIT (Appeals

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

House, Central Circle-1, Mekkadambu – P.O. Ernakulam. Muvattupuzha. PAN:AAFPE 4655 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri T. M. Sreedharan Respondent by Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 04/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dated 31/03/2016

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

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: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 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

1(2), Knowell Jairaj Building Kochi. NH Byepass, Near Edappally Junction Kochi – 682 024. [PAN: AABCM 6039M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, Adv. Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: These are two Appeals by the Revenue agitating the appellate order dated

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

1(2), Knowell Jairaj Building Kochi. NH Byepass, Near Edappally Junction Kochi – 682 024. [PAN: AABCM 6039M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, Adv. Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: These are two Appeals by the Revenue agitating the appellate order dated

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

9 of 14 assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took into account the residential property owned by the assessee in USA and denied the entire benefit under section 54F of the Act by stating that the assessee is hit by the proviso (i) to section 54F of the Act. Before proceeding further we will look

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

9 of 14 assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took into account the residential property owned by the assessee in USA and denied the entire benefit under section 54F of the Act by stating that the assessee is hit by the proviso (i) to section 54F of the Act. Before proceeding further we will look