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.

38 results for “house property”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,486Mumbai2,403Bangalore942Karnataka691Chennai489Jaipur412Kolkata352Ahmedabad326Hyderabad317Surat201Chandigarh195Pune145Indore141Telangana135Cochin110Amritsar96Visakhapatnam78Raipur77Lucknow67Rajkot62SC59Calcutta58Nagpur53Agra38Cuttack38Patna33Guwahati28Rajasthan18Jodhpur14Kerala14Allahabad11Varanasi7Jabalpur7Orissa6Dehradun5Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Panaji1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 801A63Section 1044Section 26327Charitable Trust18Addition to Income17Deduction16Section 80I13Section 26012Section 1112Disallowance

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 11/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Mohapatra
Section 24Section 68Section 69Section 80Section 80I

house property”, the AO has not given the assessee the benefit of section 24 of the Act 29. In reply

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 153A10
Section 143(3)9

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL,SUNDARGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal in the case of Mahesh

ITA 382/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am It(Ss)A No.117-119/Ctk/2018 ( Assessment Years :2011-2012 To 2013-2014) Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.146&147/Ctk/2018 (Assessment Years :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Bhubaneswar Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.44/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Sanju Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Aavpa 4328 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: In The Above Captioned Seven Appeals, Five Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessees & Two Appeals Have 2 It(Ss)A Nos.44/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.117-119/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.146&147/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.382/Ctk/2018 Been Filed By The Department Which Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.01.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 153Section 153ASection 153B

property was found, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhinav Kumar Mittal 351 ITR 20 (supra) wherein it has been held that “no reference has to be made to DVO unless incriminating documents is found in the course of search. Similar view was also taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High

SURESH KUMAR DIVAKAR,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra and Himanshu Jena, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 44A

house property, Interest income and Income from business of supply of building materials. The assessee is proprietor of two business concerns i.e. (1) Divakar Construction and (2) Manish Industries. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny 'under CASS. Accordingly, scrutiny u/s.143(3) was completed on 29.02.2016 assessed total income of Rs.2,53,16,440/- and a demand of Rs.44

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

MANORANJAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 544/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250Section 69

housing loan was availed for some other property which contrary to the evidence\non record and based on surmises as the loan was sanctioned for the same property\nin respect of which the additions has been made.\n5. The appellant may add, alter, delete or amend any of the grounds at the time of\nhearing of the matter.\"\n2.1 Right

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

Housing Finance Ltd., and State Bank of India. The date of creation of the charge being in 2018. In the balance sheet of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Pvt Ltd., under assets, the land has been shown at Rs.10,79,20,150/- in the case of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited for the year ended 31.3.2016. He further drew our attention

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act, who :- 4 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur advised