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.

52 results for “house property”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai104Bangalore101Delhi52Chennai44Kolkata18Ahmedabad14Hyderabad9Amritsar7Raipur4Jaipur4Visakhapatnam3Rajkot3Jodhpur1Karnataka1Dehradun1Cochin1Patna1Chandigarh1Agra1SC1Surat1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14A44Section 26339Deduction36Section 194J34Addition to Income34Section 143(3)31Disallowance29TDS23Section 4019Limitation/Time-bar

AMAL ALLANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 4371/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 154Section 22Section 24

section 23(l)(a) is the correct value, ignoring the facts and submissions of the appellant, which is arbitrary and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in holding the action of the A.O. in estimating the fair market value at Rs. 18,00,000/- per annum based on inspector

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 144C12
Section 142(1)9
07 Nov 2017
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 718/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2439/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2880/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito Vs Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Ward-34(3), 56, Madhya Marg, Dlf, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon, Delhi-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt0403G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

194J of the Act with relation to “Royalty” are as per the Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 9. 8. The Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) reads as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI, GURGAON

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

ITA 2880/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2880/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito Vs Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Ward-34(3), 56, Madhya Marg, Dlf, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon, Delhi-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt0403G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

194J of the Act with relation to “Royalty” are as per the Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 9. 8. The Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) reads as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would

M/S AT & T GLOBAL BETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

property for which a payment as described under para 3 of Article 12 is received (which covers payments in the nature of royalty), such payments do not pall within clause (a) of Article 12(4). Accordingly, for the aforesaid services to be taxed as FIS in India, it needs to be established that services rendered

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

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(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

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

194J of the Act. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid disallowance contending that in view of insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), the payment made could not have been disallowed since the payees had ultimately paid tax on the said sum. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea and deleted the impugned disallowance. Page

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

194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or (ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section

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

194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or (ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar , CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

houses has been subjected to tax deduction at source under section 194J and therefore the nature of these receipts are commercial in nature. Further it was also point of concern for CIT exemption that the turnover from services reported to the service tax authorities amounted to " 38665028 and assessee has also paid service tax on the fees etc received from

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

property rights or patents belonging to Honda, which, in unequivocal terms, as provided in the agreement vested in absolute ownership of Honda at all times. Further, on perusal of Article 22 of the License B product agreement, it would be appreciated that on termination/expiration of the agreement, the assessee was required to return all the documents and materials to Honda

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAPARO POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6401/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 139Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 194ISection 194JSection 194LSection 2Section 201Section 203A

House, 21, K.G. Marg, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCB8619C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 24.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi