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.

10 results for “house property”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi63Mumbai56Raipur19Bangalore14Ahmedabad13Kolkata10Chennai8Karnataka6Rajkot5Jaipur4Hyderabad2Pune2Cochin1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 26312Section 115J11Section 35D11Section 14A9Disallowance8Addition to Income6Depreciation5Section 2504Section 92C4Transfer Pricing

M/S INTER STATE OIL CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1024/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 35DSection 35D(2)

35D after verifying the claim of the assessee of having commenced the business of transportation in the financial year 1995-96. The assessee is at liberty to produce the relevant documentary evidence to support and substantiate its claim which the Assessing Officer shall verify and decide the issue in accordance with law. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Condonation of Delay4
Bench:
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses which was applicable on the facts of the case, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the facts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is reversed, the findings

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses which was applicable on the facts of the case, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the facts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is reversed, the findings

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses which was applicable on the facts of the case, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the facts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is reversed, the findings

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses which was applicable on the facts of the case, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the facts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is reversed, the findings

DCIT/ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [PAN : AAACU 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, LTU-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances by: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee Date of concluding the hearing : February

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

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

35D deduction claim & exemption on profit from joint venture(s) and section 14A disallowance involving Rs.1,12,60,000/-, Rs.40,38,000/- & Rs.2,48,10,148/-; respectively. 4. Case file suggests that PCIT termed the foregoing regular assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as follows: I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 M/s. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

35D of the Act as well as higher amount of expenses claimed by the assessee during the year as compared to the preceding year. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year, there is a transaction of share capital and share premium received by the assessee at Rs.14,69,50,000/- from issue of 14,69,500 equity shares

JALAN CARBON & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE PARI PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 34/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 35D

35D 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 11.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.7,13,640/-. In the said return, income from house property was declared by the assessee at Rs.12,71,828/-, while loss was declared under the head “income from business