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.

36 results for “house property”+ Section 374(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai442Karnataka442Delhi302Chennai104Bangalore96Chandigarh70Jaipur56Kolkata36Visakhapatnam33Ahmedabad26Agra25Raipur14Indore14Nagpur9Hyderabad9Pune8Cochin7Guwahati7Lucknow6Telangana6Rajasthan4Surat4SC3Jodhpur3Cuttack1Amritsar1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income26Section 143(3)20Section 14A15Section 13214Search & Seizure14Section 268A13Limitation/Time-bar13Section 26312Section 153A

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

2)(x) of the Act was wholly unjustified and the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 263 of the Act is invalid and deserved to be quashed. The ld. A.R. in support of his argument relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO –vs.- DG Housing Projects Limited reported

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 92C10
Deduction8
Depreciation8

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

ITA 594/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri B.C.Jain, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata erred in treating the date of sale of old residential house as 29.06.2011 whereas the date of sale need to be taken as 18.05.2011 being the date of first receipt for sales. 3. That in the facts and circumstances

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 986/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT(Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 92C

House Property without considering the decision of the latest Judgment reported in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG. CO.] reported

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 987/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT(Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 92C

House Property without considering the decision of the latest Judgment reported in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG. CO.] reported

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 92C

374 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. 137 ITR 473 (Cal). We note that since the assessee’s case on this issue have been consistently upheld by the CIT(A) which in turn has been upheld by this Tribunal and which decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), therefore

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

property (Knowhow etc.), duration and degree of protection, segment of industry and anticipated benefits are same or similar and the economic environment and geographical area of the licensor and licensee in case of comparable is also same or similar; 3. Whether on the basis of facts and in law, Ld. DRP, Kolkata have erred in holding that the determination

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

property (Knowhow etc.), duration and degree of protection, segment of industry and anticipated benefits are same or similar and the economic environment and geographical area of the licensor and licensee in case of comparable is also same or similar; 3. Whether on the basis of facts and in law, Ld. DRP, Kolkata have erred in holding that the determination

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1112/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 73

House property, capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case the income of the assessee is mainly from long term capital gain, therefore it is out of the purview of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Income here means the net income. In this connection we rely in the order of Hon’ble High Court

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SARDARSHAHR GAUSHALA SAMITY, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection are dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11oSection 143(3)Section 57

2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent of such income would be allowed and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this section. It is apparently clear from perusal of the provisions of section that the interest received by the assesse on compensation is taxable under the head income from

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)

House property. However, as the same have been claimed as a deduction under the head of business income and receipts disclosed under that head, I see no good reason for the impugned disallowance. The action of the Ld. AO in the matter is therefore held to be unsustainable in the facts of the case, and is directed to be deleted

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2628/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

GOPAL KUNDU ROY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI

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

ITA 2263/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual. During the year under appeal, the assessee had sold his landed property for Rs.15,00,000/- on 03.09.2013 and the stamp duty value of the same was for Rs.15,09,374/-. The assessee had invested the sale proceeds of Rs.15,00,000/- in construction of his new house property

ACIT,CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKAT, KOLKATA vs. M/S. STEWART & MACKERTICH WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1858/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”], or a company,the principal business of which is the business of trading in shares or 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

STEWART AND MACKERTICH WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1820/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”], or a company,the principal business of which is the business of trading in shares or 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

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Thereafter

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 911/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)

374 ITR 118 (Del), has dealt with the circumstances in dealt with the circumstances in which aggregation can be done in the context of AMP expenses. The principles laid which aggregation can be done in the context of AMP expenses. The principles laid which aggregation can be done in the context of AMP expenses. The principles laid down in this