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.

226 results for “house property”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,445Delhi2,069Bangalore786Jaipur489Chennai479Hyderabad424Ahmedabad300Pune286Chandigarh258Kolkata226Indore174Cochin146Rajkot103Raipur97Surat96Visakhapatnam87SC80Nagpur79Amritsar79Lucknow74Patna57Agra52Jodhpur39Cuttack36Guwahati31Allahabad18Dehradun16Varanasi12Jabalpur9Panaji7Ranchi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)81Addition to Income74Section 25049Section 14742Section 26336Disallowance33Section 14831Section 14A30Deduction30Section 54F

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 250Section 54F

house was being shown in the balance sheet of previous\nyear and he was not having two residential properties, but only some\naddition was done to the existing property. The Ld. AO has not\nmentioned the details of the property and the contention of the\nassessee is verified from the details filed before us. This fact could\nnot be rebutted

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
Section 142(1)

Showing 1–20 of 226 · Page 1 of 12

...
26
Limitation/Time-bar23
House Property21
Section 143(2)
Section 250
Section 54F

10 cotthas 11 chattak\n38 Sq feet situated at 13 B.T. Road owned by Sint. Saroj Goenka (PAN:ADXPG1677K) (5 Cotthas 4\nChattak 29 sq ft) and Smt. Santosh Goenka (PAN: ADXPG9550F) (5 cotthas 7 Chattak 9 sq\nft) (hereinafter referred to as the owners] and which has been taken on rent by the Diwakar Viniyog Pvt\nLtd from

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

house property income ought to have been 2 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited assessed as a business income and he took action under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, he passed an order under section 263 on 15.03.2019, copy of this order is available on pages no. 20 to 25 of the paper book

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 130/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71Section 71(4)Section 80T

3) of Section 71 of the Act, we notice that ‘Loss under the head Business & Profession’ as well as ‘Capital Gain’ has restriction for set-off with any other heads of income. However, there is no such restriction per se for set-off of ‘Loss under the head House Property’ with any other heads of income including ‘Salary income

SUGAM REALTY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 381/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(4)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if— (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than two houses

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section 22 to 27 of the Act. The Ld. AO noticed with regard to the Land and Building at Hyderabad that the assesse has declared rental income and the said property

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2619/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 234DSection 24Section 250

10. Dispute regarding House Property income, and claim of interest deduction against such House Property income: I have carefully examined the submission made by the appellant regarding the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,//,507/-, 30% standard deduction claimed under section 24(a), and dispute regarding income from house property

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2377/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 1340/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2491/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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

section 147/148 and those powers are saved.” 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of ₹31,000/- made by the Ld. AO and the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is extracted in the preceding para 3. We find no justification for interfering the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) who has treated the income from house property

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Property Management Pvt. Ltd (2023) 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta), pronounced on 31.03.2023 and stated that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2023 being after the effective date of amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, it was a valid ground for exercising the revisionary power under section 263 as conditions

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect, upholding the disallowance on claim of depreciation

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

house on 03.10.2016 whereas the assessee sold the property on 09.12.2013. According to Ld. 6 Manick Chandra Paul, AY: 2014-15 AO, it meant that valuation was done after a lapse of three years from the transfer of property. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the estimation of the cost of the property is not correct

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1665/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A(1)Section 43C

10% the addition was confirmed. Thus, the addition made of Rs. 79,09,325/- was confirmed and relief was allowed for Rs. 19,92,775/- and appeal was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

10-12- 2008 [Pg. no. 3-4 of order] & for A.Y. 2002-03 vide ITA No. 715 of 2008 dtd. 17-09-2008. In view of the above we do not find any merits in Gr.No.1 raised by the Revenue. We may also add that the issue is now settled in the case of assessee since the Department

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

section 24(b) of 30% from it. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.9,95,000/- (Returned income + income from house property, i.e. Rs.7,85,000 + Rs.2,10,000/-). 3