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 results for “house property”+ Section 19(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,105Delhi3,062Bangalore1,106Karnataka741Chennai711Kolkata483Jaipur445Hyderabad396Ahmedabad366Chandigarh258Pune219Surat214Telangana173Indore166Cochin111Amritsar111Raipur87Rajkot84Visakhapatnam79Lucknow72Nagpur68SC64Calcutta61Cuttack53Patna39Agra33Guwahati29Rajasthan24Jodhpur20Varanasi18Allahabad12Kerala10Jabalpur8Dehradun7Orissa7Panaji4Punjab & Haryana4Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 683Section 260A2

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LIMITED....b

ITA/16/2022HC Gauhati11 Apr 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Section 260A

4,690 Debt 2,961 Equity 1,269 Total 8,920 8. It was contended that the assessee received capital subsidy from the MoCF for setting up the Project. The MoCF specifically prescribed the purposes Page No.# 6/14 and the manner in which the subsidy was to be utilized and the assessee was under an obligation to utilize the capital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate
Section 132
Section 153A
Section 260A
Section 68

house property where the plaintiff resides, is not sufficient for their own use and occupation. There is also no evidence to the effect that suitable alternative accommodation is not available to the plaintiff for meeting the requirement. I am, therefore, of the view that the finding recorded by the appellate court on the issue of personal necessity cannot be sustained