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.

64 results for “house property”+ Section 145(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai589Delhi508Karnataka476Jaipur181Bangalore144Ahmedabad133Chandigarh132Chennai82Cochin78Hyderabad75Kolkata64Telangana52Calcutta51Indore50Raipur45Rajkot31Lucknow30Pune28Agra24Surat22Allahabad18Amritsar14SC13Nagpur12Visakhapatnam10Rajasthan9Cuttack8Patna7Orissa3Jodhpur3Kerala2Ranchi2Guwahati2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)102Section 26335Disallowance28Addition to Income27Section 14A20Deduction16Depreciation16Section 145(3)15Section 92C15TDS

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 54E

145/- 2 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 1,19,84,855/- Less: Exempted Investment in N.H. Bonds (Section 54EC) 50,00,000/- Investment in Land 3,50,500/- Investment in NH Bonds (2010-11) 50,00,000/- 1,03,50,500/- 16,34,355/- 6. Therefore, according to the assessee, Capital Gain Tax was payable

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

10
House Property9
Transfer Pricing9
Section 54E

145/- 2 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 1,19,84,855/- Less: Exempted Investment in N.H. Bonds (Section 54EC) 50,00,000/- Investment in Land 3,50,500/- Investment in NH Bonds (2010-11) 50,00,000/- 1,03,50,500/- 16,34,355/- 6. Therefore, according to the assessee, Capital Gain Tax was payable

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

145 which Provides for either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee is applicable in relation to income chargeable under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or profession' or 'Income from Other sources'. The computation of income from let out house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 787/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 36

House; 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata- 700001. 5. Thereafter, the notice u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued by the Department on 07.04.2015, asking the assessee to file correct return of its total income in respect of which the assessee was assessable for the assessment year 2009-10. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

Section 28 to 43 of the IT Act when rental income of Rs.2,31,00,000/- was already included in the gross receipts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimation of business profits of Rs.2,37,72,132/- made by the AO though rejection of assessee’s books of account u/s 145(3) considering the facts

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. adjustment for income-tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section

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

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 87/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

LMJ OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 88/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 541/KOL/2012[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1699/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

M/S LMJ BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 540/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Debnath, FCA & Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

145(3) of the Act and thereby estimating net profit @ 5%. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this issue due to smallness of amount involved. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same. Hence, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next common issue

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

145, all anticipated losses are to be taken into account in computing business income—That the assessee has suffered loss in holding contract of interest rate swap is not in dispute nor is there any dispute on the discounting factor—Assessee is entitled to deduction of loss on account of valuation of interest rate swap subject to the rider that

M/S H.C. COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 80/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H. C. Commercial Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- 700071. 2(1), Kolkata. (Pan: Aabch2665N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037682272(1) Dated 10.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-2(1),Kolkata Dated 28.01.2016. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-20, Kolkata On 10.12.2021 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.Lt.(A) Was Wrong In Dittoing The Order Of The A.O. & Confirming The Disallowance U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii), 0.5% Of Average Investment Amounting To Rs.5,00,482/- (Rs.9,00,375/- Minus Rs.4,00,563/-) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That The A.O. Was Not Deducted The Income From Which Is Taxable During The Year & The Amount Of Rs.400,563/- Has Already Added Back To The Return Income, So, Rs.5,00,482/- Cannot Be Part For The Disallowance & Wrongly Calculated U/S. 14A By Invoking Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 37

3 M/s. H. C. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., A.Y: 2013-14 Accordingly, Ld. AO arrived at an amount of Rs.9,01,045/- towards disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Since assessee had already suo moto disallowed Rs.4,00,563/-, the balance of Rs.5,00,482/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 3.1. In respect of the second

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

house projects, barrack projects, health centre project and other. Since, the projects awarded to the assessee were government project, the assessee after looking into the size and nature of business of the company gave labour contract for Hard Rock Chiselling using rock hammers and chisels, stacking on road side for pipe line trenches, carting excess earth and other similar labour

M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2094/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 115JSection 234CSection 801Section 80I

section which were handed over to the head cashier. Similarly statement of other employees were also recorded who admitted that cash used to be received and handed over to Shri Kavindra Kumar Mishra. Besides these general statements, the AO also relied on the customer application form of Shri William Joseph Subash found during the course of search by the searched

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