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.

84 results for “house property”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,007Delhi421Bangalore154Chandigarh143Jaipur133Ahmedabad107Kolkata84Chennai81Pune74Cochin64Raipur62Rajkot53Hyderabad49Indore33Nagpur31Patna27Guwahati22SC21Surat16Amritsar15Lucknow14Visakhapatnam13Cuttack13Jodhpur8Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Allahabad1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)60Section 25049Addition to Income42Section 26340Section 115J38Section 14832Section 14A26Section 14725Disallowance24

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT CEN.-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 79

losses amounting to Rs. 14,94,53,474/- in light of the provisions of Section 79 of the Act, considering that in the case of the assessee there was a change of shareholding by more than 51% and thereby the provisions of Section 79 of the Act were attracted. The ld. Pr. CIT also found that

ARUS PROPERTIES LLP,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., EXEMPT - 1, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

Condonation of Delay18
Deduction17
Section 143(2)16
ITA 533/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
31 Oct 2025
AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Arus Properties Llp,………………………..….…Appellant 7B, Pretoria Street, ‘Alom House’, Kolkata-700071 [Pan:Abcfa4787H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Exempt-1, Circle-1(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132(9)Section 71

loss is not permissible if return of income is not filed within due date. Therefore, he pleaded to confirm the orders of both the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a 3 Arus Properties LLP Limited Liability Partnership

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

loss from house property which was carried forward has also been denied. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

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

house property”. Therefore, he estimated the rent at Rs.25,000/- x 12 i.e. amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- for the period of 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. However, the ld. Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs.12,22,124/- of interest loss is declined and the said amount could not be carried forward

ASP FINCORP,PARK STREET , KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2062/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2062/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jhawel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

house property income as per annexure attached to the intimation u/s 143(1) by making a wrong addition and ignoring the loss claimed by the appellant. 4) The appellant leave, crave, to add or alter any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm, filed the original

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

House, J.L. Nehru Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Vs Road, Kolkata - 700071 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AABCR3494H) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Bikash Chanda, CA Respondent by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed

AMITABH JALAN FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 596/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250

house property after standard deduction of 30% and assessee has also declared business loss of Rs. (-) 3,34,510/- resultantly net income has been shown at zero after setting off of the business losses of Rs.(-)3,642/- has been carried forward

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

loss of ₹1,46,903/-. During the Previous year ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. corresponding to the AY 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had derived income from rent amounting to ₹9,48,000/-, therefore, the rental income ought to have been considered under "Income

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

carry forward loss has been shown for the relevant period. It is stated that Explanation 5 to section 11(1) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect from 01.04.2022. However, this explanation is clarificatory in nature as the set off of loss is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, which relates

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: S/shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR

housing project and ultimate sale to the actual buyer, the involvement of the intermediaries companies by virtue of sale/homination agreement is nothing, but tax planning of the assessee in the form of claim of long term capital loss by showing its right in the alleged property (flat). The assessing officer also analyzed the agreement through which the purported right

PRESSMAN REALTY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

house property and were wrongly charged into the profit and loss account. Finally the AO rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of loss of 1,11,05,354/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2016. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO on this issue by holding that

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has conducted

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has conducted

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has conducted

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has conducted

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee
Section 54Section 54F

loss on sale of property. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued, served and duly responded by the assessee. The ld. AO on perusal of the details and documents filed by the assessee observed that assessee has transferred property during the year which was purchased in F.Y. 2005-06 for ₹1,65,68,750/- the index cost

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

loss account. Apart from this, Society kept some funds and the society must incur the expenditure in the, form of interest paid to the members (the funds unutilized as well as interest expenditure incurred against such funds are not ascertainable from the records). This amount would be very substantial. So, the same is determined through indirect method of reverse working

SIMOCO SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

carried forward loss been calculated properly and tax demand would also have been Nil. Aggrieved with the additions, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by giving the following findings in Para 5.3 of the impugned appeal order: 5.3 Findings and Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well

MANICK CHANDRA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 614/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 55ASection 80

carried forward and adjusted in the current A.Y. 2014-15. Therefore, even though the assessee may have claimed the loss in the wrong year, he shall still be entitled to set off of the said genuine loss and the A.O. should not take advantage of the bona fide mistake of the assessee as per CBDT vide circular No.14

STAR PAPER MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92B

House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAECS0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA Revenue by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal is directed