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.

13 results for “house property”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,693Mumbai1,582Bangalore581Karnataka575Jaipur336Chennai333Ahmedabad324Hyderabad224Kolkata223Chandigarh178Cochin163Indore146Pune143Telangana109Visakhapatnam96Surat94Raipur62Calcutta54Lucknow52Rajkot52SC34Agra33Nagpur32Amritsar26Cuttack21Jodhpur16Guwahati13Patna11Dehradun9Rajasthan8Allahabad8Varanasi8Jabalpur5Orissa3Ranchi2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Section 143(3)8Section 69A7Section 2507Section 44A5Deduction5Depreciation5Disallowance5Section 153C4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 89/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

Section 153A3
Section 69C3
Section 1482

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

SUBHASH CHAND CHORARIA,GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), with the primary issue being the unexplained cash deposit of ₹37,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that while the assessee received his rental income through banking channels, he had deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/GTY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

House Property Rs. (-)88,200/- Gross total Income Rs. 4,79,070/- Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Income Rs. 3,29,070/- 6. Ld. AO noted, “it is ascertained that during the financial year 2015-16 had made accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gains in the form of penny stock by way of trading

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA vs. M/S. BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 99/GTY/2000[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Dec 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble]

For Appellant: Smt. Harshita Jain on behalf of NituFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

57,330/- claimed by the assessee on foreign of travel expenses of the wife of the Managing Director, Shri D. Sen. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business. However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the Board

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 38. The present appeals concern AYs 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, on the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - DIMAPUR , DIMAPUR vs. M/S. UDIPTA ENERGY & EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 45/Gau/2017 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Udipta Energy & Equipment Tax, Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C/O Phukan Nagar, Sivasagar, Assam-785640 (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/ Assessee) (Ĥ×"ȡ"Ȣ- / Respondent) .. È"ȡ"Ȣलेखासं./Pan No. Aaacu5559K \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Rabindro Singh, Jcit Ĥ×""ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Uttam Kr. Borthakur, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Rabindro Singh, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Uttam Kr. Borthakur, Advocate
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 69C

57,595-1,25,000 suo moto disallowed by assessee). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved, by the order of the ld CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The learned