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.

318 results for “house property”+ Section 144Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai355Delhi318Bangalore99Kolkata58Ahmedabad31Chennai27Hyderabad27Jaipur13Pune9Indore8Chandigarh5Surat4Cochin3Karnataka2SC2Kerala1Rajkot1Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)82Addition to Income45Section 144C31Transfer Pricing27Double Taxation/DTAA26Section 144C(13)22Section 10A22Comparables/TP20Deduction19Section 148

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

144C(13) of the Act. Further, if section 153(1) of the Act were to apply only to cases of non-eligible assessees, then, in that situation, the said section would have read as under: ―No order of assessment ……….. other than an assessment completed in pursuance of directions of the DRP … …. (words inserted) shall be made under section

Showing 1–20 of 318 · Page 1 of 16

...
17
Section 92C16
Section 143(1)16

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

144C(13) of the Act. Further, if section 153(1) of the Act were to apply only to cases of non-eligible assessees, then, in that situation, the said section would have read as under: ―No order of assessment ……….. other than an assessment completed in pursuance of directions of the DRP … …. (words inserted) shall be made under section

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54F

144C(5) of the Act dated 16.05.2023 does not bear the DIN Number, was stated to be not pressed by the learned AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as a statement made from the bar and accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 3. Though, the assessee has raised

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

House of Parliament.” 9. In our considered opinion pursuant to the faceless regime introduced by the Govt. of India, National e Assessment Centre becomes Income Tax Authority vested with the powers of issuing notice, transferring the case, framing the assessment etc. Once, any document which is (ld DRP directions dated 25.03.2022 in the instant case) is uploaded in the ITBA

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1768/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

section 144C of the Act. In such a draft order, the income is first computed by the Assessing Officer under respective heads, such as, 15 income chargeable under the head "Income from house property

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15 wherein, the original return of income was filed by the assessee on 29.11.2014 at Rs. 2,59,00,06,780/- assessed at Rs. 4,86,64,97,120/-. Majorly the addition of Rs. 2,24,82,44,566/- was made on account

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54FSection 69A

house property. The DRP vide its directions dated 18.09.2023 passed u/s 144C(13) of the Act, upheld the aforesaid action of the AO, pursuant to which final assessment order dated 18.10.2023 was passed at an assessed income of Rs. 4,16,38,920/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act. The assessee has earned an LTCG

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/04/2023 by making 4 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia addition of Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain and further disallowed Rs. 80,14,041/- u/s 54 of the Act being 50% wife’s shares in the new house property

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

house property as adopted by the AO/DRP at Rs.1,03,43,551 for Appellant’s 1/3rd share s inadequate and the addition of Rs.2,23,23,116 as made towards long term capital gain is very excessive. 6. That the levy of interest under section 234D of Rs.9,00,769 is illegal and at any rate, very excessive. 7. That

JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 603/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(1)Section 37(1)

144C(13) of the Act and not computing the assessed income in conformity with the order/ directions of the TPO/ DRP. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in enhancing the transfer pricing adjustment with respect to payment of royalty on 2DX model and retaining disallowance under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAJAN SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/DEL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 147Section 69

144C of the Act as with the following observations. 4. He observed that the transactions for FY 2014-15 were flagged in Non-filers Monitoring System. He observed that entries in Form 26AS and ITS data for the FY 2014-15 indicated that assessee had received following amounts:- (i) Rs.22,73,333/- from Ravissance Developers Private Ltd.; and (ii) Rs.19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2172/DEL/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 147Section 69

144C of the Act as with the following observations. 4. He observed that the transactions for FY 2014-15 were flagged in Non-filers Monitoring System. He observed that entries in Form 26AS and ITS data for the FY 2014-15 indicated that assessee had received following amounts:- (i) Rs.22,73,333/- from Ravissance Developers Private Ltd.; and (ii) Rs.19

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 602/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

House Property' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. a. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.19

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 311/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

144C (5) vide order dated 27.10.2015, culminating into final assessment order dated 27.10.2015. 2. We will first take up revenue’s appeal wherein the only ground raised is, deletion of addition of Rs. 7,24,88,104/- proposed by the AO on account of interest paid to Tata Realty Infrastructure Limited. The facts in brief are that assessee company

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 6585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

144C (5) vide order dated 27.10.2015, culminating into final assessment order dated 27.10.2015. 2. We will first take up revenue’s appeal wherein the only ground raised is, deletion of addition of Rs. 7,24,88,104/- proposed by the AO on account of interest paid to Tata Realty Infrastructure Limited. The facts in brief are that assessee company

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

144C(13) of the Act. Since common issues are involved, both these appeals were Page 1 of 12 ITA nos.- 1483 & 1640/Del/2022 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.- 1483/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 2. The grievances of the assessee read

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

144C(13) of the Act. Since common issues are involved, both these appeals were Page 1 of 12 ITA nos.- 1483 & 1640/Del/2022 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.- 1483/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 2. The grievances of the assessee read

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

144C of the act has preferred an appeal before us. 29. Therefore, now it is apparent that following issues are under dispute in these two appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal filed by the revenue for two assessment years. i. Transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

144C of the act has preferred an appeal before us. 29. Therefore, now it is apparent that following issues are under dispute in these two appeals filed by the assessee and one appeal filed by the revenue for two assessment years. i. Transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price