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.

45 results for “house property”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka457Mumbai354Delhi331Bangalore180Chandigarh66Jaipur65Chennai53Kolkata45Hyderabad42Ahmedabad31Indore22Rajkot21Calcutta16Pune14Telangana11Agra10Amritsar10Raipur8Surat6Jodhpur4Cuttack4Nagpur4Patna4Rajasthan4SC3Visakhapatnam3Kerala2Cochin2Guwahati1Andhra Pradesh1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 26345Section 143(3)24Section 14820Addition to Income18Deduction16Revision u/s 26316Section 14A15Disallowance15Section 14714

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

section 143(3)/254/251, in respect of assessment year 1993-94 was the same, and the assessee accepted the same without preferring any appeal. As a matter of fact, the revenue has never produced any such material in support of its contention. On the other hand, vide page No. 104 and 106 of the paper book the assessee produced

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

Section 2412
House Property11
Section 143(2)10
ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
10 Jul 2025
AY 2016-2017

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

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

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

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown

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)

property u/s 24 of the Act, and accordingly he disallowed the same. The Ld. A.O made further from heads of 'Preparation of Site plan' of Rs.10,000/­, 'Registration of Lease Deed' of Rs.30,500/­, 'Interest on TDS' of Rs.45,319/­, 'TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD ,IDEAL CENTRE vs. CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

ITA 817/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

282/- and assessed I.T.A. No. 817/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maithan Ceramic Ltd. 2 income at Rs. 1,78,76,308/-. The assessee challenged the said additions/disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the following additions/disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A):- (a) Foreign exchange

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUTCO BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1253/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

property. The assessee in the year under consideration filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹42,11,133/- dated 25.09.2010. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide dated 26.05.2011. 6. A survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at business premises of assessee on 11.03.2010 wherein several documents, books of account

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 9. In the appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing officer. 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has borrowed money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 9. In the appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing officer. 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has borrowed money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 9. In the appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing officer. 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has borrowed money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 9. In the appellate proceedings, ld CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing officer. 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has borrowed money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest

ITO, WD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUVRIDHI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA No

ITA 830/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830 & 831/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) Vs. M/S Suvridhi Capital I.T.O., Ward – 2(4), Kolkata Markets Ltd. 516, Kamalalaya Centre, 156A, Lelin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4092 F ( Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri G. H. Sema, Acit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri Ashis Kumar Rustogi, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010-11, Are Directed By Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which Is In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertain To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Revenue`S Appeal In Ita No.830/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Taken As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri G. H. Sema, ACIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashis Kumar Rustogi, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 73

house property”, capital gains and income from other sources or accompany the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1359/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 94(7)

282/- and the balance income is from units of mutual fund of Rs 1,49,34,415/- ; profit on investment in shares of Rs 1,13,56,022/- and profit from Gold Exchange Traded Fund of Rs 17,73,752/-. The assessee suffered loss of Rs 69,97,401/- on derivative transactions. The assessee disclosed short term capital gains

AADARSH LADDHA, LEGAL HEIR OF KAILASH CHAND LADDHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1013/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Aadarsh Laddha,………………….………...……Appellant (Legal Heir Of Kailash Chand Laddha) 31, Giri Babu Lane, Kolkata-700012, W.B. [Pan:Abapl2499R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Sidhharth Kejriwal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)

house property amounting to Rs.33,600/- and income from other sources of Rs.59,104 and claimed deduction under chapter-VIA of Rs.2,27,049/- and finally arrived at the total income of Rs.10,55,930/-.As per audited profit & loss account, it is seen that a total expenses [Rs.6,10,525/- + Rs.4,17,700/-] i.e. in total Rs.10

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1330/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Advocate & Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 6 SOT 245 (Mumbai), Asstt. CIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances

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

282/- to the assessee after verifying the TDS certificates and other evidences as may be furnished by the assessee in respect of its claim. Accordingly the ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.7. The issue raised in ground no. 4 is in respect of allowability of MAT credit of taxes of earlier years from

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

282 ITR 431(ALL.) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable even when concealment of income is admitted by filing a revised return after detection of concealment. M. S. MOHAMMED MARZOOK (LATE) AND ANOTHER (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, [2006] 283 ITR 254 (MAD) Penalty- concealment of income-revised return filed after search proceedings - Finding

DCIT,CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1053/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

Properties Pvt. Ltd., the proceedings u/s. 147 are not in respect of your company i.e. M/s. Mani Square. Hence, the fact that M/s. Mani Square Ltd. is before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission for that assessment year is not relevant as the proceedings are different.” 8. From a reading of the aforesaid letter it is discernible that the AO admitted

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1052/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

Properties Pvt. Ltd., the proceedings u/s. 147 are not in respect of your company i.e. M/s. Mani Square. Hence, the fact that M/s. Mani Square Ltd. is before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission for that assessment year is not relevant as the proceedings are different.” 8. From a reading of the aforesaid letter it is discernible that the AO admitted