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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 29Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka61Mumbai26Delhi26Bangalore12Ahmedabad11Kolkata5Jaipur4Indore4SC4Pune2Chennai1Chandigarh1Surat1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 54E4Section 50C3Section 2633Deduction3Short Term Capital Gains3Exemption2Addition to Income2Capital Gains2

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

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 of ‘Short

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]

Long Term Capital Gains2
Section 54E

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 of ‘Short

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

house property for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee had sold 4 depreciable assets/f1ats during the year belonging to the same Block of Assets - Building. The opening WDV of the said Block was Rs.1,33,21,798/-. The sale consideration received from these 4 properties was more than the Opening

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

ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAHESH KUMAR SINGHANIA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate
Section 48Section 50C

29A) - Held that- The Tribunal placed reliance on Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT [Z014 (2) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - a right has been conferred on the allottee to hold a flat which was later identified and possession delivered on a later date - the mere fact that possession was delivered later does not detract from the fact that the allottee