Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

333 results for “house property”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,570 Delhi4,531 Bangalore1,632 Chennai1,361 Ahmedabad917 Jaipur902 Kolkata874 Karnataka831 Hyderabad786 Pune686 Chandigarh467 Surat352 Cochin334 Indore333 Visakhapatnam297 Telangana220 Amritsar186 Rajkot164 Raipur139 Lucknow127 Nagpur124 Cuttack117 Agra86 SC83 Calcutta75 Patna72 Jodhpur60 Guwahati51 Dehradun39 Allahabad37 Varanasi25 Rajasthan24 Kerala21 Ranchi20 Jabalpur19 Panaji11 Orissa9 Punjab & Haryana5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 Himachal Pradesh2 Andhra Pradesh2 Gauhati2 J&K1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)113 Addition to Income78 Section 153A61 Section 26350 Section 12A45 Section 14743 Section 6836 Deduction28 Section 80I27 Section 54F

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 118/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Showing 1–20 of 333 · Page 1 of 17

...

25

House Property25

ITA 203/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 344/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 117/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 24/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 352/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 25/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 26/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 22Section 263Section 54

Section 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income of Rs. 19,740/-: Computation of Capital Gains Sale Consideration received Rs. 29,00,000 Market Value of the property sold Rs. 42,52,000 PARTICULARA SALES MARKET VALUE CONSIDERATION 50% share in house property 14,50,000 21,26,000 sold (Itwara, Bhopal) Indexed Cost

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 “The assessee sold her house property for Rs. 45 lacs and claimed deduction under Section

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

4) of the Act were initiated subsequent to search proceeding carried out on Ramani Group on 30th August 2016. Certain loose papers were found having some details of salary payments, calculation of higher salary, cash payment, hand written details of income and expenditure which have been claimed by the assessee to be dumb documents and the detailed discussion with regard

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

4) of the Act were initiated subsequent to search proceeding carried out on Ramani Group on 30th August 2016. Certain loose papers were found having some details of salary payments, calculation of higher salary, cash payment, hand written details of income and expenditure which have been claimed by the assessee to be dumb documents and the detailed discussion with regard

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

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

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract