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.

40 results for “house property”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi590Mumbai554Bangalore307Ahmedabad120Jaipur92Chennai71Kolkata40Hyderabad36Indore29Pune28Karnataka25Agra22Lucknow21Chandigarh15Rajkot12Cochin12Surat12Allahabad11Nagpur10Visakhapatnam9Patna6Jodhpur5Ranchi5Cuttack4Amritsar1Dehradun1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)36Section 234B20Addition to Income18Deduction16Section 26313Section 2413Section 144C11Section 92C10Section 143(2)10House Property

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

House Property as per the provisions of Section 23(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A), Income Tax Department, NFAC erred in law as well in facts in confirming the said addition in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no such Addition was at all called

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

10
Disallowance10
Section 1549

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

property income up to 50% under section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) ii. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the DCIT) in restricting the claim of home loan interest deduction under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

house property and delete the addition made to the total income. The ground no. 2,3 and 4 are allowed. 07. The issue raised in ground no.6, is against the charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act which are consequential and are not required to be adjudicated at this stage. ITA No.610/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 08. The counsel

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

house property and delete the addition made to the total income. The ground no. 2,3 and 4 are allowed. 07. The issue raised in ground no.6, is against the charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act which are consequential and are not required to be adjudicated at this stage. ITA No.610/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 08. The counsel

SHREE KUMAR BANGUR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 365/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 24Section 263

house property after reducing Rs.1,55,159 from the assessee’s share of gross rent of the property. The alternative submission of the assessee to allow deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of Rs 1,55,159 is rejected accordingly” 5. The Ld. AR also pointed out that in the assessee’s own case

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14A

property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house." 14. In the present case, it is evident from the record that both parties, i.e., the assessee and the purchaser, agreed to the terms of the oral agreement, and the purchaser also made the payment of the sale consideration

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 1250/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

234B in the sum of Rs.279104 and Section 234C in the sum of Rs.93408. (4) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter modify the grounds mentioned herein above. - 4 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are related to the addition of Rs.60,46,000/- to the appellant’s income from business

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

house property ". It, therefore, appears, as has also been found by the Commissioner of Income-tax ( Appeals ), that the Income-tax Officer has proceeded with conscious mind on the assumption that there is cessation of business and as such, rental income is not business income. The answer to the question whether rental income in the instant case should be treated

MOHD. ZULKARNAIN ALI,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

ITA 449/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Zulkarnain Ali Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur 98, Ramanujam Road, B-Zone, Vs. Durgapur-713205. Pan: Ahspa 0354 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 194Section 234ASection 234BSection 44A

House Property Income as per 26AS report on estimated basis which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. that on the facts of the case, the A.0. was wrong in not considering the facts that the assessee carrying on business as electrical equipment and light renting and should be deducted @2% on Rent of plant & machinery as per section

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

MOHAMMED AZHAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 234BSection 24

234B & 234C charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 6. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Now we take up the appeal ITA No. 282/Kol/2015 for the AY 2009-10 ( by the assessee). 4. Ground nos. 1 to 3 are similar in nature

SINGHI & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 971/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Singhi & Co., Acit, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Circle-54, 54/1, Rafi Kolkata-700001. Ahmed Kidwai Road, Pan-Aasfs9578D Kolkata-700016. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By Sh. Pradip Majumden, Addl. Cit. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property as it was not owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. Before us, Ld.AR placed reliance in the case of Raj Daddarkar & Associates of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.-6455-6460 of 2017 and prayed

UTSAV JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1514/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/S. Ito, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [Pan No.Agrpj 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

house within the prescribed period and neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - XVI, Kolkata allowed this claim of the assessee as both of them treated the emanating gains to be "short term capital gain" and not "long term capital gains" 4) For that without prejudice to any other ground taken herein, the Ld. Commissioner

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

234B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 47,617. Prayer i. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds of appeal stated herein above before or at any time of hearing of the appeal. ii. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

OUTOTEC GMBH,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, IT - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 160/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Subhabrata Mukherjee, AR &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 209Section 234ASection 234B

234B of the Act on the appellant, for default in payment of advance tax, without appreciating the fact that the appellant, being a non-resident, was not liable to pay advance tax under Section 209(i)(d) of the Act since the entire income was liable for tax 3 Outotec Gmbh I.T.A No.160 & 193/Kol/2016 A.Y. – 2012-13 deduction at source

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OUTOTEC GMBH, KOLKATA

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

ITA 193/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Subhabrata Mukherjee, AR &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 209Section 234ASection 234B

234B of the Act on the appellant, for default in payment of advance tax, without appreciating the fact that the appellant, being a non-resident, was not liable to pay advance tax under Section 209(i)(d) of the Act since the entire income was liable for tax 3 Outotec Gmbh I.T.A No.160 & 193/Kol/2016 A.Y. – 2012-13 deduction at source

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2 Dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard and thus the order is violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law. 2 Neetu Agarwal AY: 2020-21 3. Holding that the delay in filing

SMT NUPUR JOSHI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 748/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 748/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Nupur Joshi -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata [Pan: Acspj 7765 K] [Formerly International Taxation, Cir-1(2), Kolkata] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 234BSection 54

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Ground Nos. 1 & 10 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 2 Smt. Nupur Joshi A.Yr. 2009-10 3. The Ground No. 9 is with regard to charging of interest u/s 234B

DURGAPUR SOCIETY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, CIR-2, EXEMPT, KOL. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Durgapur Society Of Management Income Tax Officer, Circle-2, Science Vs Exempt, Kolkata Dr. Zakir Hussain Avenue Hudco More Bidhannager Durgapur - 713206 [Pan : Aaatd7804P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2023 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 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. For That The Ld Pcit Erred In Setting Aside The Order In The Light Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of New Noble Educational Society Pronounced On 19Th Oct, 2022 When The Judgement Itself Clearly Stated That It Should Be Applied Prospectively & Therefore The Order Of The Pcit Should Be Quashed Since The Order Passed By The Ao Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue. 2. For That The Ld Pcit Erred In Holding That The Rent Received From The Building Which Was Let Out Since Lying Idle For Some Period Constituted Income From Business When The Objects The Predominant Object Of The Society Was Providing Education & 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 10Section 11(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

House Property. 6. For that even otherwise the income could be computed separately since the rental income was separately ascertainable. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld PCIT is liable to be set aside.” 3. Thought the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, the sole grievance of the assessee