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.

2,510 results for “house property”+ Section 2(14)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,510Mumbai2,462Bangalore912Karnataka684Chennai536Jaipur482Ahmedabad422Hyderabad412Kolkata399Chandigarh274Pune264Surat232Indore218Cochin200Visakhapatnam137Telangana130Rajkot115Amritsar110Raipur96Nagpur71Lucknow71Cuttack62Calcutta61SC58Agra42Jodhpur37Patna34Allahabad27Guwahati27Rajasthan15Dehradun14Varanasi11Kerala10Orissa9Panaji6Jabalpur3Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 153A47Section 143(3)38Section 153D34Section 14731Section 6824Section 13220Section 14819Deduction18Disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Showing 1–20 of 2,510 · Page 1 of 126

...
18
Section 69A17
Search & Seizure14
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Sevices (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619. (xii)Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Tullow India Operation Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789. (xiii)Surya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1606. (xiv)Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 – UNION OF INDIA

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GOMANTAK EXIMIS LTD.,

ITA/1163/2018HC Delhi15 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 115JSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)

property would be exempt from taxation since it constituted a sale of agricultural land and would thus not fall within the ambit of the expression ‘capital asset’ as defined by Section 2(14) of the Act. Before us, it was not disputed that the land constituted rural agricultural land and would not fall within the scope of Section 2(14

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

ITA/462/2009HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

14 of the Act stipulates various heads of income, one of them being ―Income from Other Sources‖. As per Section 56 of the Act, dividend income is to be included under this head, viz., ―Income from Other Sources‖. Thus, the amount of dividend received by the shareholders is to be treated as income which is to be taxed under head

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1024/2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

14 of38 0 0 0 0 0 The law prior to insertion of Section 14A 12. Prior to the introduction of section 14A in the said Act, the position in law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 1024 / 2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

14 of38 2011:DHC:13239-DB 0 0 0 0 0 The law prior to insertion of Section 14A 12. Prior to the introduction of section 14A in the said Act, the position in law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/932/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/263/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTMES LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 77 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/936/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/702/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1114/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/389/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/683/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/77/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VOU INVESTMENT LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 57 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/853/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

house properties or different securities, etc., and income from one or more items alone is taxable whereas income from the other item is exempt under the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible; and (iii) in computing "profits and gains of business or profession" when an assessee is carrying on business in various