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.

144 results for “house property”+ Section 10(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,020Delhi1,829Bangalore682Jaipur406Chennai393Hyderabad365Ahmedabad249Chandigarh230Pune221Kolkata179Indore144Cochin125Raipur87Surat83Rajkot76Amritsar72Visakhapatnam71SC70Nagpur61Lucknow54Agra44Patna39Cuttack27Guwahati27Jodhpur24Dehradun11Varanasi11Allahabad10Panaji6Jabalpur5Ranchi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)165Section 26384Addition to Income68Section 153A64Section 271A44Section 12A43Section 8043Section 1135Section 14735Exemption

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 90/IND/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Showing 1–20 of 144 · Page 1 of 8

...
26
Deduction25
Disallowance17
ITA 548/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 36/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 37/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 24/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

FAIZAN E BURHANE MILLAT TRUST,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

section 13(1)(b) would be attracted in the case of the assessee. Further, CIT(E) has observed that the objects of the assessee confined to benefit to only Muslim community and therefore, it would be covered by restriction u/s 13(1)(b) of the Act even though it functions for public benefit. At the outset we noted that

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 423/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 422/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 425/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 427/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 27/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 80

13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the AO, in his findings, has noted that the assessee sold plots to buyers through registered Sale-Deeds and Page 22 of 34 Vaishali Developers And Builders ITA Nos. 26 & 27/Ind/2024- AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10 entered into separate Agreements for construction of houses and that no registry/transfer of houses was made. Therefore

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 26/IND/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 80

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development\nof infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR,\n'entire project' would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes\nthe construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the\ncase of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from\nassessee through registered Sale

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

ITA 159/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

property but only examining whether for the purpose of\nbenefit under s. 80IB(10), the assessee could be considered as the\nowner of the land in question. For the limited purpose of deduction u/s\n80IB(10), the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also,\neven if it was necessary. The Tribunal committed no error in holding\nthat the assesses

SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

property. Thus the appellant had acted as a work contractor. It also be mentioned here that the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of SKY Builders & Developers Vs. 1101(1), Page 12 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016 Abhay Dare Bhopal (2011) 14 taxmann com 78 (Indore- tribunal) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 291/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

13. Further the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Smt. Saroj Kapoor (supra), while adjudicating the similar issue relating to pro rata deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, confirmed the view in favour of the assessee by observing as follows :- " Having stated so, now we shall deal with other aspects. On the aspect of nature of provisions of section

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

13-14, Dhenu Market 38,92,340 4,67,080 (2,33,540 (+) 2,33,540) 2 12, Dhenu Market 8,45,890 1,01,500 3 103, Horizon, Saket Nagar 25,05,000 3,00,000 Self-occupied property at Old 4 1,50,000 Palasia Total 10,18,580 We find that copy of repayment schedule/ loan statement

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

ITA 975/IND/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

property, copy of which was also placed on record before Ld. AD. [PB 68-72] B.Ld. AO based on the documentary evidences placed on record allowed the claim of the assessee u/s BO(IB)(10} of Rs. 1,11,55,537. One of the plausible views was taken by the Ld. AO based on documentary evidences, applicable

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

house purchased by him and accordingly he is not qualified for claiming deduction of investment while computing the capital gain chargeable to tax. Hence, without bringing any supporting views about his belief and doubting the genuineness of the transaction even ignoring the fact that entire transactions have Page 10 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla been done through Banking channel