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.

17 results for “house property”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi266Mumbai117Karnataka61Calcutta51Telangana41Bangalore35Chennai27Jaipur20Ahmedabad19Kolkata17Cochin14SC12Amritsar11Nagpur7Raipur6Indore5Kerala5Surat4Hyderabad3Allahabad3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam2Gauhati2Jodhpur2Lucknow2Rajasthan1Pune1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Section 26317Section 80I8Addition to Income7Deduction6Section 54E4Section 115J4Capital Gains4Long Term Capital Gains4

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1298/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid discussion, it can be inferred that in order to understand the meaning of the expression 'housing project

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

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

Short Term Capital Gains4
Business Income4
Section 2503
ITA 720/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
21 Aug 2018
AY 2009-2010

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

Section 54E

260A was filed by the Revenue. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “The Commissioner reasoned that since possession of the land was made over by the assessee to the developer at or immediately upon the execution of the agreement of February 7, 2007, the transfer is deemed to have taken place at such point

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

260A was filed by the Revenue. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “The Commissioner reasoned that since possession of the land was made over by the assessee to the developer at or immediately upon the execution of the agreement of February 7, 2007, the transfer is deemed to have taken place at such point

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

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

Section 80ISection 80i

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, 23 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid

ITO,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AGARWALA PROPERTIES LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1318/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha Jalan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bhattacharya, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 22Section 260A

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has also chosen neither to discuss the case- law/s referred by the Assessing Officer nor has the one relied upon by the assessee, thereby, making the deletion perverse, unlawful and unjustified. 3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata erred

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

Housing Projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 349 and DIT –vs.- Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 488. f) The fifth proposition of the ld. A.R. is with regard to the fact that the values adopted by the stamp duty authorities were highly excessive and did not reflect the true and correct market reality. The ld. A.R. submitted that

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 850/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 851/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 849/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 848/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

Properties & Finvest Pvt. Ltd., order dt. 30.05.2016, wherein one of us is the author of the decisions, has held as follows: 27. We now consider the merits of the addition without taking into consideration the statement of Shri S.K. Jain or the material found during the search of Shri S.K. Jain. On a perusal of the documents submitted

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

Properties &FinvestPvt. Ltd., order dt. 30.05.2016, wherein one of us is the author of the decisions, has held as follows: 27. We now consider the merits of the addition without taking into consideration the statement of Shri S.K. Jain or the material found during the search of Shri S.K. Jain. On a perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

properties, obligation and securities. The company also carries on Software business as manufacturer, buyer, seller, trader, importer, exporter, distributor, broker, stockiest, and omission agent. The company was incorporated as a private company in 1976, promoted by Giriraj Kishor Agarwal and Tunu Agarwal. Other key persons are Hemant Kumar Tibrewala, Shardadevi Tibrewala, Kamalkant Tibrewala Financials of the company for the past

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 968/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 80ISection 92C

260A of the Act. In fact, this has been noted by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. We are informed by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant that the revenue has challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 2016-17 and ITAT/20/2025 is pending before this Court. Admittedly, there

DCI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-10(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T. A.No. 126 /Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Dic India Ltd. Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- [Pan :Aabbcc0703C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant Sri D. S. Damle, Fca Sri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2017

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 92E

260A before the authorities had observed that the assessee did not derive any enduring benefit and the agreement was for no- transferable license to manufacture licensed products in India. In the circumstance the appeal of the Revenue on this issue was dismissed. The CIT, Kolkata-1 has not preferred further appeal before the Supreme Court and therefore the issue

RIVERBANK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

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

housing aggregating 315,000 lacs square feet (approximately) and Princep Riverfront Homes aggregating to 325,000 square feet (approximately) in phases.” 8.4 We also note that along with the letter dated 21.10.2013, the assessee enclosed documents evidencing the payments of Rs.90 crores actually made to BIL. On verification of these documents, we therefore do not find