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.

29 results for “house property”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi472Karnataka467Mumbai330Bangalore131Chennai79Jaipur65Kolkata63Cochin61Calcutta54Telangana38Hyderabad34Raipur33Surat33Ahmedabad32Indore29Chandigarh23Rajkot20Amritsar17Lucknow15Patna11Cuttack11Rajasthan9SC9Pune8Agra5Jabalpur5Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam2Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh2Nagpur2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)48Addition to Income25Section 80I24Section 14722Section 153A20Section 6818Section 14816Section 26316Section 32A16Disallowance

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 138/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: & Shri Santosh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

11
Deduction8
Depreciation8

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

ITA 110/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: & Shri Santosh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction at Rs. 1,18,50,047/-. The appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings pointed

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction at Rs. 1,18,50,047/-. The appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings pointed

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction at Rs. 1,18,50,047/-. The appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings pointed

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 9. Rest of the delay in filing the appeal is explained by the assessee as discussed above and we are satisfied that the assessee

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 67/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 68/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

138 : (2010) 328 ITR 411 : (2008) 174 TAXMAN466 : (2008) 14 DTR 257 Xxxxxx ..... xxxxx It is the case of the assessee that during the course of search & seizure, no incriminating material or undisclosed income or investments were found. It is stated that the assessee was under mental pressure and tired. Therefore, to buy peace of mind, he accepted and declared

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 881/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 290/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 816/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 820/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 782/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 882/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 819/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 197/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

138 (Hyderabad). 18. Further, with respect to the AO’s contention of awarding of contract in the name of SPV, CIT(A) observed that SPV was formed only to obtain contract from government body or to comply to requirement of government directives, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that SPV is only a de-jure contractor and assessee