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 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,255Delhi2,920Bangalore1,063Chennai718Kolkata704Karnataka549Jaipur529Hyderabad448Ahmedabad417Pune302Chandigarh291Indore206Cochin149Surat142Rajkot125Visakhapatnam115Amritsar100Raipur100Lucknow95Telangana82Nagpur77Patna58Calcutta57Agra50Cuttack41Jodhpur33Guwahati32SC21Varanasi20Dehradun16Allahabad15Jabalpur15Kerala10Panaji9Rajasthan7Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80I6Section 804Section 139(1)3Section 143(3)3Section 1392Section 542Deduction2

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR

ITA/11/2020HC Himachal Pradesh27 Dec 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Sabina & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya Income Tax Appeal No. 11 Of 2020 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla. ….Appellant (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 54

143(3)/147 of the Act was completed on 26.11.2014. The exemption claimed by the respondent was disallowed and total income was assessed at Rs.2,05,36,949/-. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had neither invested sale proceeds of the asset in new residential house nor he had deposited the capital gains to the capital gain account within

Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. HP HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HIMUDA)

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/35/2019HC Himachal Pradesh
22 Dec 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

143(3) of the Act declined the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80 IB(10) of the Act in its revised return. This was for the reason that the assessee had not filed the original return within the permissible period under Section 139 (1) of the Act. The AO held that return of income was filed