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.

11 results for “house property”+ Section 166clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi504Karnataka452Mumbai344Bangalore116Jaipur80Chandigarh77Cochin61Chennai52Telangana47Kolkata42Hyderabad41Ahmedabad39Raipur35Lucknow28Pune20Amritsar16Calcutta16Visakhapatnam15Nagpur13Indore11Rajasthan9Rajkot8SC8Patna7Surat6Jabalpur5Agra4Varanasi4Cuttack3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)15Section 153A10Section 6810Addition to Income10Section 2637Section 143(3)7House Property7Long Term Capital Gains5Penny Stock

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 8/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 113/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore
5
Exemption5
Deduction5
Section 694
25 Jun 2021
AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 29/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 30/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 7/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 404/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Housing Society after surrender of her rights in the property; and (ii) On account of cessation of customers liability of Rs.5,03,531/- in A.Y.2007- 08, of Rs.47,57,258/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.17,50,000/- in A.Y.2009-10. I.T(SS)A No. 181 to 184 /IND/2014 and Ors. A.Ys. 2005-06 to 08-09 Page No 6 Late Jitendra

LATE SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHASNE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 406/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Housing Society after surrender of her rights in the property; and (ii) On account of cessation of customers liability of Rs.5,03,531/- in A.Y.2007- 08, of Rs.47,57,258/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.17,50,000/- in A.Y.2009-10. I.T(SS)A No. 181 to 184 /IND/2014 and Ors. A.Ys. 2005-06 to 08-09 Page No 6 Late Jitendra

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

166 taxmann.com 188 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated its view that where the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 128/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

166/- as wrong claim and adding them back to total income without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made in the matter. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhopal, erred in confirming the disallowance of interest on TDS amounting to Rs. 2,13,093/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

ITA 228/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

ITA 226/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect