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.

9 results for “house property”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,676 Delhi1,110 Bangalore511 Chennai365 Jaipur357 Ahmedabad335 Kolkata266 Hyderabad216 Pune163 Karnataka151 Chandigarh119 Indore118 Cochin77 Raipur76 Surat68 Visakhapatnam56 Calcutta54 Nagpur48 Guwahati27 Telangana25 Rajkot25 SC24 Amritsar22 Cuttack21 Lucknow18 Agra13 Jodhpur9 Kerala9 Ranchi7 Dehradun6 Allahabad5 Rajasthan4 Patna4 Jabalpur3 Andhra Pradesh2 Varanasi2 Panaji1 Gauhati1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 54F13 Section 26312 Addition to Income7 Section 143(3)6 Disallowance5 Section 54B4 Business Income4 Deduction4 Section 142(1)3

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

Short term capital gain Address of property Date of purchase Cost of acquisition Date of Sale Sale Value Net STCG Anukampa Housing

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property3

Limitation/Time-bar3

Condonation of Delay3

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

short term capital gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. In our view, such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

short]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for taxing capital gain under the head business income and not giving benefit of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 2 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

short]. 2. The grievance of the assessee relate to explaining the scope of limited scrutiny and treating the property on sale of 2 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT capita asset as business income in place of capital gain and declined exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 3. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through

SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

short, the Act) wherein following grounds have been raised: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order U/s 263 passed by Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction

HARISH KUMAR BAHETI,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.56/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Harish Kumar Baheti Acit –Circle Bhilwara बनाम C/O M/S. R.K. Bhandari & Associates (Ca) Rajasthan City Tower, Gandhi Bazar / Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlpb-1795-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Raksha Birla (CA) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], 2 Shri Harish Kumar Baheti Assessment Year: 2014-15 Appeal No.408/2016-17 dated 09/11/2017 on following effective grounds:- 1. The A.O, was not justified in making additions made on account of Undisclosed Credits U/s 69A of Rs. 7,10,000/- which in fact has been deposited into SB A/c out of Savings of the assessee

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

short question\nis whether this surrendered income is to be taxed u/s 115BBE\nor under the normal provision. It is pertinent to note that the\n assessment year involved herein is accounting year for\n assessment year 2014-15.\n15. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we\nfind that this issue, whether surrendered income during the\ncourse

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal has held in several cases that

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal has held in several cases that