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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai68Delhi14Bangalore9Raipur8Ahmedabad7Kolkata4Surat2Chandigarh2Jaipur2Pune2Lucknow1Cochin1Agra1Chennai1Rajkot1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 16310Section 1442Section 1602Section 1472Addition to Income2

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 475/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 558/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that