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.

65 results for “house property”+ Section 80G(5)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai119Delhi65Bangalore45Chennai37Kolkata27Ahmedabad27Pune17Lucknow16Chandigarh13Jaipur8Indore5Cochin4Hyderabad4Amritsar4Surat3Jodhpur2SC2Nagpur1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1Rajkot1Telangana1Dehradun1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 12A43Addition to Income41Section 143(3)37Section 80G34Section 1130Deduction26Section 26325Section 80I24Exemption24Section 13(3)

VAIDYA MANGAT RAI FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 2668/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

II) in a case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) …….” 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced in July 2020, hence the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 92C20
Disallowance18

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

ITA/1335/2010HC Delhi21 May 2012
Section 13(1)(c)

houses and grant of free food and lodging to deserving students upon such terms and for such periods in each case as the Governing Board may think fit. 2012:DHC:3486-DB ITAs 1335/10 & 50/2011 Page 6 of 25 l. To grant endowment at Universities, Research Institutions and other educational and scientific institution for spread of education and knowledge

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

house) was also maintained by the trust, to take care of stay of visitors /travelers who come to visit the Ashram for their great respect for Gandhiji and his philosophy. However nominal rates were charged from such visitors/travelers for providing accommodation facilities. The assesse was, however, for the assessment year 2009-10, denied renewal of registration under section 80G(5

GREAT EASTERN EXPORTS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/267/2008HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

80G or [section 80GGA or section 80GGC] or section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80HHB or section 80HHC or section 80HHD or section 80-I or section 80-IA [or section 80-IB] [or section 80-IC] [or section 80-ID or section 80-IE] or section 80J or section 80JJ, no deduction under the same section shall

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 541/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44Section 72Section 80G

ii) of the Act (income from shareholder‟s account) and that too against loss as re-computed in earlier years. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing the ld AO too drop the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During

TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

Appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/888/2010HC Delhi28 Jul 2010
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 260A

ii) deposit in any account with the Post Office Savings Bank; (iii) deposit in any account with a scheduled bank or a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a co-operative land mortgage bank or a co-operative land development bank). Explanation.—In this clause, "scheduled bank" means the State Bank of India constituted

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

II, III, IV & V GROUND VI: ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, it is hit by the proviso

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2872/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1131/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1142/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2675/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 507/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)

II - Corporate tax matters 15. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the DRP was not justified and have erred by taxing gross composite rental income of Rs. 19,42,65,000 received from let out building space alongwith inbuilt infrastructure and other amenities under the head ‘Income from House Property’ instead of ‘Income from Other

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2091/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Indian Medical Association Vs. Adit (E), Trust Circle-Ii, Ima Hosue, I.P. Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaati 0290 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain CA and Shri Ashish Chadha CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

80G vide registration 2 no. 1436 dated 31.8.2009, which was valid from 2010-11 to 2012-13. The AO noticed as under: 2. The main objects of the society are to promote and advance medical science and to promote improvement of public health and medical education in India. The activities of IMA included holding of periodical meetings/ conferences

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE(2)1, GURGAON

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

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

II That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.24,80,877/- made by the learned ACIT, on account of disallowances of set off of B/f short term loss Rs. 3,09,191/- and long-term capital loss Rs. 21,71,686/-. Ground

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

property and the goods under sales and by not recognizing the entire sale proceeds (shown in the sales invoice as revenue), the assessee violated the provisions of Sales of Goods Act and provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act in the light of definition of ‘Accrual’ and ‘substance over form’ issued in notification no. SO 69(E) dated

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

property and the goods under sales and by not recognizing the entire sale proceeds (shown in the sales invoice as revenue), the assessee violated the provisions of Sales of Goods Act and provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act in the light of definition of ‘Accrual’ and ‘substance over form’ issued in notification no. SO 69(E) dated

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

5 of the appeal of the assessee is against an addition of Rs. 3.02 lakhs by estimating the value of the scrap lying in stock as at the end of the relevant previous year on hypothetical and national basis. Ld. assessing officer on perusal of the significant accounting policies mentioned in scheduled 12 of the financial statements for the financial

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

80G could not be claimed. Further, the amount involved is small. Examining the claim for depreciation of assets of Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which had closed its restaurant in Nepal, the Tribunal recorded that the assessee had produced the RBI permission to close the restaurant but there was no evidence to show and prove that the assets were brought

M/S FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

ii. R S Software (India) Private This is an appropriate comparable as it passes Limited all the filters applied by the TPO. It is being considered as comparable. iii. Akshay Software Technologies This Is an appropriate comparable as it passes Limited all the filters applied by the TPO. It is being considered as comparable. iv. Helios & Matheson The annual report