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(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,543Mumbai1,371Bangalore682Karnataka589Chennai345Jaipur229Kolkata213Hyderabad193Ahmedabad168Chandigarh156Telangana107Cochin90Pune71Rajkot64Indore60Raipur60Calcutta56Visakhapatnam52Amritsar48Nagpur46SC37Surat37Lucknow32Cuttack30Patna25Agra23Guwahati22Rajasthan7Kerala7Orissa5Jodhpur5Allahabad3Panaji3Varanasi2Ranchi2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Jabalpur1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

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

47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating

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

47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating

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

47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating

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

47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating

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

47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating

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

V Menon and Adv. Jose Joseph for the parties. 2. One K M Fathima, Calicut/assessee, is the appellant in the batch of cases. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kochi/Revenue is the respondent. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated 23.04.2018, is in appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short

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

V Menon and Adv. Jose Joseph for the parties. 2. One K M Fathima, Calicut/assessee, is the appellant in the batch of cases. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kochi/Revenue is the respondent. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated 23.04.2018, is in appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short