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.

7 results for “house property”+ Section 2(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,535Delhi2,503Bangalore899Karnataka649Chennai518Jaipur423Kolkata403Hyderabad340Ahmedabad329Chandigarh203Surat171Pune162Telangana143Indore127Cochin80Raipur77Amritsar75Rajkot72Lucknow61Calcutta57Nagpur54SC52Visakhapatnam41Cuttack36Patna33Agra28Guwahati28Rajasthan19Varanasi10Kerala10Jodhpur10Panaji8Allahabad8Jabalpur7Orissa7Dehradun6Ranchi4Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 2638Section 1484Section 263(2)4Limitation/Time-bar4Revision u/s 2634Section 143(3)3Section 143(1)3Addition to Income3Section 24

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

ITA 112/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 24

section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation of income as to be deduction from business income. Hence

2

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

ITA 37/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

house may kindly be deleted. 9.The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of theappeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was a agriculturist. The Assessing Officer (AO) has received the information as per AIR that the assessee has purchased an immovable property situated at Bhopal amounting to Rs. 2

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

31, ascertained. At this stage, the Bench, allowing time, required the parties to respond qua the recent decision by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed [2021] 438 ITR 288 (SC). Per the same, it has been clarified by the Apex Court, in the context of s. 263(2), that the date of receipt of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Jabalpur, Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, 291, Ramanth Building, Napier 01/32/33, Ashirwad Market, Town, Jabalpur-482001 Vs. Lordganj, Jabalpur-482001. Pan No. Achpa 7963 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Shiv Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)

section 68. In the inst 68. In the instant case also, there was sufficient cash balance ant case also, there was sufficient cash balance with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank account