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.

860 results for “house property”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,334Delhi860Karnataka442Bangalore412Jaipur281Ahmedabad217Chennai205Hyderabad195Kolkata188Surat183Cochin149Pune131Chandigarh121Amritsar108Indore106Visakhapatnam76Rajkot60Calcutta50Nagpur45Raipur37Patna37Telangana33Allahabad25Lucknow23Jodhpur20Guwahati16Cuttack14Dehradun9Varanasi9SC8Agra8Jabalpur6Panaji5Ranchi5Rajasthan4Kerala2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income76Section 6844Section 153A40Section 143(3)31Disallowance31Section 14826Section 14725Section 5424Section 69A21Section 250

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

property (residential house) and thus the determination of annual value was not justified. E] Photocopy of Trading, Profit & Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, 2009 and Balance Sheet on that date along with Audit Report on the prescribed Form 3CD for the audit held u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Explanation/ confirmation of the parties

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Showing 1–20 of 860 · Page 1 of 43

...
21
House Property17
Deduction16
Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

house property and in making the addition. The same is, therefore, confirmed. Ground no. 3 & 4 are rejected. 6. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds in A.Y. 2010-11 which cover the other year also:- “Ground No.1: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') has erred

DCIT, CC-4, NEW DELHI vs. MG HOUSING PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2037/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

section 149(1)(a) are fulfilled in the facts of this case. The appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of promotion, construction, development, purchase and sale of real estate properties and filed

YAD DHARAM SATYA TRUST ,DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, DELHI

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

ITA 2037/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

section 149(1)(a) are fulfilled in the facts of this case. The appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of promotion, construction, development, purchase and sale of real estate properties and filed

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) vide para 3 of the order has erred in facts and also in law in confirming addition of Rs.2,47,75,170/- by disallowing legitimately claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA(4

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 251(2)

4. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 12.08.2013 was issued. 5. The Company has its registered office at 17, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase – III, New Delhi, 110020 (hereinafter referred to as “office property”). The said office property is an old property acquired in 1992 and is the sole property held

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3272/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

house property and income from other sources. During the assessee has declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,32,13,389/- on the total turnover of Rs. 6,47,26,704/- yielding a g.p. rate of 20.41% in comparison to the immediate preceding year’s gp rate of 23.52% on the total turnover of Rs. 4,93,62,1785/-. There

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

250(4) of the Act when the AO has filed to response on the request of ld. CIT(A) of making verification of the submissions made by the assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it of establishing the genuineness of the loans and creditworthiness of the lender company and further established

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

250(4) of the Act when the AO has filed to response on the request of ld. CIT(A) of making verification of the submissions made by the assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it of establishing the genuineness of the loans and creditworthiness of the lender company and further established

ASHISH DHAM,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1953/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 69

house property. 4. That ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard and raising any query during the course of hearing is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the confirming the addition the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in the receipts

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 09.12.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Learned Assistant 2 Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle 19(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) Act for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2349/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 23(1)(a)

4. You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why for the purpose of computation of income from House Property, the annual value of the said property should not be taken at Rs.1,06,20,000/- and income from house property be computed accordingly." 7. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2346/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 23(1)(a)

4. You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why for the purpose of computation of income from House Property, the annual value of the said property should not be taken at Rs.1,06,20,000/- and income from house property be computed accordingly." 7. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the property

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 1423/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 24

250 (Kar.) and orders co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of ITO vs. P.N. Shukla [1985] 14 ITD 105 (All.) and at Hyderabad in the case of DDIT vs. Shri G. Raghuram ITA No. 6/Hyd/2010, submitted that where the assessee made to agreements one for let out of the property and another for providing amenities

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 762/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 26

250/-. Subsequently, the amounting to Rs.9,08,104/- wherein he has claimed deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs.54,000/- and section 24(b) of Rs.10,34,104/-. From the Sale Deed, he noted that the property is jointly owned by the assessee and his wife Smt. Arti Sharma. The Assessing Officer, referring to the provisions of section 26, held that

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 763/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 26

250/-. Subsequently, the amounting to Rs.9,08,104/- wherein he has claimed deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs.54,000/- and section 24(b) of Rs.10,34,104/-. From the Sale Deed, he noted that the property is jointly owned by the assessee and his wife Smt. Arti Sharma. The Assessing Officer, referring to the provisions of section 26, held that

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma
Section 142(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16. 2 I.T.A. No. 4613/Del/2019 M/s Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 2. In the instant case, the Assessee declared its income at Rs. (-) 10,17,441/- by filing its original return of income on dated 27.09.2015, wherein the revenue receipts generated from operations of “Hotel/Resort

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

4. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 16.11.2007 declaring total income at Rs.4,81,560/-. The return was processed uls 143(1) of the IT Act and case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is a Director of M/s Effectron Luminex Ltd Holding 47.9% equity. In this case order u/s 250