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.

500 results for “house property”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi762 Mumbai730 Karnataka500 Bangalore238 Jaipur134 Chennai116 Hyderabad113 Kolkata90 Cochin67 Ahmedabad60 Chandigarh54 Calcutta51 Pune44 Telangana39 Raipur34 Lucknow30 Amritsar29 Surat25 Indore25 Guwahati22 SC16 Visakhapatnam15 Cuttack10 Nagpur10 Rajkot8 Panaji6 Jodhpur5 Agra5 Patna5 Rajasthan5 Kerala4 Orissa3 Varanasi2 Allahabad2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 Jabalpur1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income29 Section 26021 Section 48216 Section 712 Section 356 Section 17A5 Section 13(1)(e)5 Section 260A3 Section 1542

K S VENKATESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

ITA/416/2009HC Karnataka03 Jul 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 72

House Property” apart from “business income”. Subsequently by issuance of notice under section 154 the said order of assessment was sought

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41239/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Showing 1–20 of 500 · Page 1 of 25

...

Section 482

Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41241/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41237/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41231/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41235/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41230/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41234/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41232/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41229/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41240/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/26395/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41238/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

property of the House, further held that for the purpose of starting an investigation into evasion of tax, the source of information is not material; when the legislature itself has not restricted the authorities concerned under Section 132 supra from acting upon the information which may be derived from the report of the CAG which has not been laid/discussed

SHRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/36310/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

C MAHADESH @ AVVAMAHADESH vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/46318/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

WP/6159/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

WP/15918/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

SHRI V BHASKAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/27744/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

WP/15917/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/24444/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment