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.

210 results for “house property”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai344Delhi210Bangalore173Ahmedabad76Jaipur69Chennai51Kolkata36Hyderabad27Karnataka22Agra20Raipur19Lucknow19Chandigarh14Rajkot12Indore11Pune10Nagpur8Surat6Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Cuttack3Jodhpur3Patna3Ranchi2Dehradun1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 143(3)69Section 14761Deduction35Section 6833Section 1132Natural Justice31Section 234A29Disallowance27House Property

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

Showing 1–20 of 210 · Page 1 of 11

...
25
Section 143(2)21
Section 43B21

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 54

house property has pg. 1 Ram Mohan Rai ACIT 6612/Del/2016 AY 2013-14 come into effect from A Y 2015-16 and hence the same is not applicable during the relevant assessment year. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the above said disallowance misinterpreting the case laws relied

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

ITA 1228/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 49(1)Section 54

house owned by the appellant and allowed by the AO and consequently the enhancement of income by Rs. 60,27,000/- is arbitrary, unjust and any rate very excessive. 2. That the CIT(A) as well as AO has erred on facts and under the law in adopting the fair market value of land sold

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

ITA 1824/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 24

house property. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining that there is no application / utilization of expenses against the receipt for the purpose of charitable activity u/s. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the interest charged u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 2025/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 24

house property. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining that there is no application / utilization of expenses against the receipt for the purpose of charitable activity u/s. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the interest charged u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income

PRAMOD KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5318/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 171Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C

AJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5317/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 171Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

house property by the Ld. CIT(A)-1 and as income from other sources by the Ld. AO. We have adjudicated this issue while dealing with ground No. 4 wherein we have held that the said sum forms part of income from Business Centre run by the assessee which is assessable as Business income. The assessment be modified accordingly

JYOTI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta & Ms. Vanshika Mehta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 54F

property bearing no. 5/21, Roop Nagar, Delhi comprising of ground floor plus one half share of first floor and one half share in the second floor. Now, the assessee vide sale deed dated 22.04.2013 purchased remaining part of residential house i.e. one half share of first floor and one half share in the second floor and claimed deduction

SHRI UDAY SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

house property within the time allowed under the law and in respect of which documentary evidence were also filed. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act has been claimed in the return in accordance with the provisions of law. It was stated that construction of flat in Lotus Boullward Project of Cloud & Projects Pvt Ltd is complete and is now ready

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 308/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

house Property and framing the impugned reassessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234ASection 54

234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring income

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ground number 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground number [3]

ITA 740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shipra Estate Ltd, Vs Acit, C/O. Pradeep & Co, Circle-2, Tax Advocates, Ghaziabad 7, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Pan: Aaccs6116J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary [CIT]–DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 80I

234C of the Act. 11 Thus, assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) has preferred this appeal before us. 12 The ld. AR on the issue of completion of the housing project for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act, submitted that appellant obtained the approval on 26.09.2006 for developing housing project in the name

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside

ITA 2003/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Kamal Kumar Vs. Acit, 13, Ashoka Avenue Road, Central Circle-26, E-2, Dlf Farms Chattarpur, Room No. 323, Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 23(1)(c)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250(6)

house property taking a view that tax is imposable on vacant property even though no rent is realized by interpreting section 23(1)(c) that benefit of the vacancy allowance cannot be granted if property is not let out during previous year. There is no dispute between Ld.AO and assessee that the property was vacant and no rent was realized

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars