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 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,526Mumbai1,188Bangalore547Karnataka488Jaipur297Hyderabad246Chennai214Chandigarh179Ahmedabad111Kolkata105Cochin89Amritsar85Pune81Indore71Rajkot61Telangana57Calcutta51Raipur50Nagpur49Visakhapatnam42Lucknow39Surat36Agra32Patna27Guwahati25SC18Jodhpur15Rajasthan7Dehradun7Kerala7Varanasi6Allahabad5Cuttack3Orissa3D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Jabalpur1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/53/2018HC Kerala11 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 132 of the Act. After rejecting the preliminary objection, the assessing authority examined the details given by the assessee. The assessee claims a source from agricultural income for the slab ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -11- Assessment Years and the claim of income from agricultural sources is considered and rejected. The order of assessing authority discloses

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/76/2018HC Kerala11 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 132 of the Act. After rejecting the preliminary objection, the assessing authority examined the details given by the assessee. The assessee claims a source from agricultural income for the slab ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -11- Assessment Years and the claim of income from agricultural sources is considered and rejected. The order of assessing authority discloses

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value