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.

295 results for “house property”+ Section 2(45)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,041Mumbai1,904Bangalore723Karnataka629Chennai478Jaipur397Ahmedabad377Hyderabad318Kolkata295Chandigarh237Pune203Indore179Cochin164Telangana127Surat119Visakhapatnam96Rajkot86Raipur72Calcutta57Lucknow56Amritsar56Nagpur55Cuttack49SC41Patna33Guwahati27Jodhpur21Agra19Rajasthan12Allahabad9Dehradun8Kerala8Orissa6Ranchi4Varanasi4Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Punjab & Haryana1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)101Section 26358Addition to Income57Section 14839Deduction36Section 14734Disallowance34Section 14A28Section 143(2)22

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to take note of the said disallowance. It means that the ld. Assessing Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act of recording satisfaction before applying Rule 8D of the Rules. On this ground itself the disallowance made under section

Showing 1–20 of 295 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 80I22
Section 25021
House Property18

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to take note of the said disallowance. It means that the ld. Assessing Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act of recording satisfaction before applying Rule 8D of the Rules. On this ground itself the disallowance made under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to take note of the said disallowance. It means that the ld. Assessing Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act of recording satisfaction before applying Rule 8D of the Rules. On this ground itself the disallowance made under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to take note of the said disallowance. It means that the ld. Assessing Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 14A of the Act of recording satisfaction before applying Rule 8D of the Rules. On this ground itself the disallowance made under section

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1929/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

45(2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1927/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

45(2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1925/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2006-2007

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

45(2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1928/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

45(2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1926/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 45(2)

45(2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 297/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 24 (a) of rebate/ deduction of 30% is to be allowed from House Property Income”. 5. The issue relating to claim of the assessee for deduction on account of business expenses under various heads was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeal) vide paragraphs no. 13 to 18 of his impugned order, which read as under:- “13. The appellant

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]

Section 54E

2(29A) of the Act since it was held for a period exceeding thirty six months prior to 24.07.2008. Accordingly we reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to assess the income arising from transfer of the immovable property at VIP Road, Kolkata under the head ‘Long term Capital Gain’ instead

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

2(29A) of the Act since it was held for a period exceeding thirty six months prior to 24.07.2008. Accordingly we reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to assess the income arising from transfer of the immovable property at VIP Road, Kolkata under the head ‘Long term Capital Gain’ instead

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

45. All that the section looks at is the transfer of a capital asset held as understood under section 2(14) of the Act and under section 2(47) of the Act. According to us, the AO failed to appreciate that the assessee has acquired a legal right in the capital asset in terms of Section. 2

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

45. All that the section looks at is the transfer of a capital asset held as understood under section 2(14) of the Act and under section 2(47) of the Act. According to us, the AO failed to appreciate that the assessee has acquired a legal right in the capital asset in terms of Section. 2

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1869/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

Properties (2011) 135 ITJ 426(Mum.), dealing with similar issue, wherein it was held, "It is only a case where a benefit above a certain specified amount only is liable to be taxed in the hands of the employee. Such case, in our humble opinion, does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in S. 115WB

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1867/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

Properties (2011) 135 ITJ 426(Mum.), dealing with similar issue, wherein it was held, "It is only a case where a benefit above a certain specified amount only is liable to be taxed in the hands of the employee. Such case, in our humble opinion, does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in S. 115WB

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1866/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

Properties (2011) 135 ITJ 426(Mum.), dealing with similar issue, wherein it was held, "It is only a case where a benefit above a certain specified amount only is liable to be taxed in the hands of the employee. Such case, in our humble opinion, does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in S. 115WB