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.

305 results for “house property”+ Section 144C(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai329Delhi305Bangalore97Kolkata54Ahmedabad51Hyderabad30Chennai24Pune15Indore15Jaipur11Surat6Chandigarh5Karnataka2Cochin2SC2Kerala1Rajkot1Lucknow1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income39Section 144C28Transfer Pricing25Double Taxation/DTAA24Section 144C(13)20Section 10A20Comparables/TP18Deduction

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

10 SCC 452] that the wide amplitude of a non obstante clause must be kept confined to the legislative policy and it can be given effect to, to the extent Parliament intended and not beyond the same and that in construing the provisions of a non obstante clause, it was necessary to determine the purpose and object for which

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

Showing 1–20 of 305 · Page 1 of 16

...
16
Section 92C15
Section 143(1)15
Disallowance15
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

10 SCC 452] that the wide amplitude of a non obstante clause must be kept confined to the legislative policy and it can be given effect to, to the extent Parliament intended and not beyond the same and that in construing the provisions of a non obstante clause, it was necessary to determine the purpose and object for which

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

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

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA/134/2013HC Delhi19 Mar 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr Anoop
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)Section 131(1)Section 30Section 32Section 37(1)

House Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Sir, LPA 134/2013 Page 12 of 60 Please refer to your passport application dated 22.07.2008, on the basis of which you were issued passport bearing No. Z-1784222 dated 30.07.2008 by this office. It is informed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai that a complaint dated 16.9.2010 under section 13 of FEMA

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

10 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In order to decide this controversy, it would be apt to consider the mandate of section 44 as under :- `Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income

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

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

144C(13) and read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and is thus bad in law and is void ab-initio. 2 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. TP adjustment in relation to notional interest

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

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

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

M/S. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1833/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiteradata India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Tower- Circle-Ii, 4A, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 92C

144C (13) of the income tax act, 1961 on 30/01/2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 143666346/– against the returned income of Rs. 63528820/–. In the final assessment order over and above the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 65 Lacs, the disallowance of deduction under section 10A, disallowance of warranty expense etc were made. Assessee being aggrieved

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

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

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)

house property and other sources amounting to 6 JCB INDIA LTD. Vs. DCIT INR 87.80.34.560 in the computation sheet without appreciating that same were already included in the returned income 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not granting credit of tax deducted at source amounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145C(5)Section 92BSection 92F

144C(2) of the Act, on 01/05/2014. The findings of the DRP in its order dated 30.12.2014 are summarized as under: 11 (a) Transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP Expenses – Following Special Bench decision in case of LG Electronics India Ltd. reported in 140 ITD 41(Del)(SB), DRP held that there existed an “international transaction” as per provision