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.

87 results for “house property”+ Section 194C(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai125Bangalore109Delhi87Ahmedabad40Kolkata36Chennai29Cochin22Karnataka22Raipur21Hyderabad16Rajkot13Indore13Jaipur11Cuttack10Amritsar10Nagpur9Chandigarh6Kerala5Lucknow5Surat4Pune3SC2Rajasthan1Patna1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14A51Deduction48Addition to Income48Section 143(3)46Section 194C35Disallowance35TDS33Section 194I29Section 4027Section 263

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

7 of the appeal of the assessee is against the disallowance of Rs. 196581820/– in respect of provision for advertisement expenses incurred at the head office made at the Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 201(1)17
Section 19417

M/S. CEAR INDIA MULTITRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6763/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 22Section 24Section 28Section 68

House Property” and computation of such income has to be as per 7 (Cear India Multitronics Pvt. Ltd.) section 22. Ld.DR at this juncture submitted that principle of res judicata do not apply to taxing laws. 13. We have perused submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 14. Admittedly, assessee in preceding

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1053/DEL/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1052/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1038/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

7. Coming to the first property at London i.e., Apartment No.8 in Hepworth Court 30 at Gatlif Road, London, the PCIT notes in his order that this property was not shown in the ‘AL Schedule' and also no ALV (Annual Letting Value) from this property was disclosed by the assessee. According to PCIT, even the assessee has not mentioned that

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

7. Muzzafarpur ROB Ircon Construction of Road over 1,14,58,821 International Bridge both railway span Ltd. and adjacent approaches span including reinforced earth wall/retaining wall 8. Soanbarsa NHAI Augmenting the existing 68,95,11,290 (Through road from km 2.8 to km 89 Project on Muzaffarpur- Sonbarsa Company Section of National North Bihar Highway

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

7. Muzzafarpur ROB Ircon Construction of 1,14,58,821 International Road over Bridge Ltd. both railway span and adjacent approaches span including reinforced earth wall/retaining wall 8. Soanbarsa NHAI Augmenting the 68,95,11,290 (Through existing road from Project km 2.8 to km 89 Company on Muzaffarpur- North Bihar Sonbarsa Section Highway Ltd. of National Highway

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

ITA 1054/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Galleria Condominium Vs Ito, Association, Galleria Building, Ward-1(3), Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaaag3018P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rishabh Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Jaishree, Ca Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 140Section 147Section 194Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As interest income is disbursed to members who had contributed to it. 4. Further as per verdict of Bangalore Club v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Interest income is not taxable as concept of mutuality has been extended to define groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled

SUDESH YADAV,MOHINDERGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, NARNAUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 40

house property were declared in a sum of Rs. 1,87,110/-. Since, there were no declined in the gross profit ratio, therefore, it was accepted by the AO. The AO further noted that assessee had debited Rs. 6,54,094/- on account of renovation expenses in the books of account. Details of the same were furnished. The AO asked

RBS BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3081/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3081/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3082/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Rbs Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit(Tds)-1(1), (Formerly Known As Abn Amro Mumbai-400002 Central Enterprises Service Pvt. Ltd.), Empire Complex, 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca1780D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 28Section 44ASection 9

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India; or (h) any trust; or (i) any university established or incorporated

RBS BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3082/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3081/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3082/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Rbs Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit(Tds)-1(1), (Formerly Known As Abn Amro Mumbai-400002 Central Enterprises Service Pvt. Ltd.), Empire Complex, 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca1780D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 28Section 44ASection 9

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India; or (h) any trust; or (i) any university established or incorporated

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

SHREE BALKRISHNA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujeet Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

property is independent to letting out of DG, AC, Glow Sign and maintenance services. There are separate registered agreements for them. The tenant had option to avail these facilities or not and in actual some tenants did not availed them. Separate staff for security and / or maintenance is kept, electricity expenses are incurred and lot of other activities are involved

SH. JATINDER SINGH,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2184/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 263

house property has not at all been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and there being complete lack of examination and 7 ITA No.2184/Del./2016 application of mind on this issue, the ld. CIT, in our opinion, has rightly restored the issue to the AO for adjudication. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the assessee

JHONSON WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 75(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1738/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Johnson Watch Company Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 75(1), L-21, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi Appellant Respondent Pan: Aabcj9807G

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

house property. In the case before hand, the CAM charges are paid by the lessor and the appellant has no control on actual expenditure to be incurred by the lessor. In view of above mentioned factual and legal position, thus it is clear that the CAM charges paid by the appellant are part of rent liable

MEENA KUMARI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 7992/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimeena Kumari, Vs. Ito, B-66, Rampuri, Chander Nagar, Ward-1(4), Near Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Aefpk6899A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50CSection 54F

194C situated at Gram Chikamberpur, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad on 29/05/2009 to M/s Bonanza Distributors Pvt Ltd for the sale consideration of Rs. 8,200,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 19,40,500/– was paid on the value assessed by the stamp duty valuation authority who assessed the value of the property

KAPOOR WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRLCE-75(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020 (A.Y 2011-12) (Through Video Conferencing) Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit G-7, South Extension, Part-1, Circle-75(1) New Delhi New Delhi Aaack3885A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

house property”. The Ld. AR further submitted that obligation to deduct TDS arises u/s 194-I of the Act only if nature of payment in hands of payee is rent. In the instant case payment is 5 in the nature of maintenance charges undisputedly in hands of payee and once it is the factual position then both legally and logically

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

194C are not applicable and consequently the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted. 14.96. It would be pertinent to point that section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEEMRANA HOTELS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4554/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 40Section 40A

194C under the garb of contractual payments. Therefore, AO held that there is short deduction of TDS by the assessee under section 194-I in the cases of Peirce Leslie India Ltd., Sudhir Muljee, Francis Wacziarg, Matheson Bosanquet Ent Ltd., Meera Kulkarni, Ashok Jain and SRK Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, AO held that as per provision of section