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.

253 results for “house property”+ Section 41clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,974Mumbai1,768Bangalore702Karnataka603Ahmedabad382Chennai364Jaipur340Hyderabad278Kolkata253Chandigarh218Indore171Pune171Surat140Cochin134Telangana119Visakhapatnam84Amritsar79Raipur71Rajkot68Calcutta57Lucknow50SC44Cuttack43Nagpur42Agra27Guwahati24Patna23Rajasthan14Dehradun11Jodhpur9Varanasi7Allahabad7Orissa6Kerala5Ranchi2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2Panaji1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)81Section 14A49Addition to Income48Section 26337Disallowance33Section 14826Section 80I26Deduction25House Property23

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 297/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 24 (a) of rebate/ deduction of 30% is to be allowed from House Property Income”. 5. The issue relating to claim of the assessee for deduction on account of business expenses under various heads was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeal) vide paragraphs no. 13 to 18 of his impugned order, which read as under:- “13. The appellant

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)

Showing 1–20 of 253 · Page 1 of 13

...
Section 14722
Capital Gains17
Section 25016
Section 22
Section 27

section 23 was inserted by finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018; ITA No.1298/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 DCIT Cir-12(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. Page 9 therefore, the same is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. 11. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of coordinate bench in assessee’s own case

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 857/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 263

41,347/- (Rs.1,35,428/- paid to SBI &Rs.1,05,919/- paid to ICICI Bank), on Housing Loan taken from the Bank. Though the assessee had claimed Negative Income from Housing Property at Rs. 1,40,547/-, the A.O. has not applied the provisions of section

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2619/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 234DSection 24Section 250

house property in terms of the above principles. b. Rs. 2,37,459/- : Accordingly to Ld. AO, during the assessment stage, the assessee did not provide the bank statement bearing A/c No. 000201043669. Further the Ld. AO has also stated that verification of the said bank account revealed that the assessee received Rs.2,37,459/- in her bank account

D.C.I.T CIR - 56,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. SMT. SARITA ARORA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 48

section 41(1). The assessee was never assessed under the head ‘business’ and the assessee has been assessed under individual capacity only for the previous assessment years. The said amount received from her father during his life time and also after his demise for the purpose of purchasing house property

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2377/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 1340/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2491/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club confirmed the order of the Bankipur Club Ltd. It further held that in that judgment the issue of earning interest on Fixed Deposits from Banks was not decided. It held that in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) the Supreme Court adjudicated the question as to whether

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

house property is to be made as per sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty

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

section 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act is "shall", but it would not necessarily mean that in every case, it shall be taken to be mandatory requirement instead would depend upon the intent of the Legislature and not the language in which the provision is clothed. The meaning and the intent of the Legislature would be gathered

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2099/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 24

41,251/- and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it has constituted the Deed of Partnership with effect from 10.01.2003 to carry on the real estate business. The assessee for real estate business has advanced money for the plots/ lands

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2098/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 24

41,251/- and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it has constituted the Deed of Partnership with effect from 10.01.2003 to carry on the real estate business. The assessee for real estate business has advanced money for the plots/ lands

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2097/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 24

41,251/- and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it has constituted the Deed of Partnership with effect from 10.01.2003 to carry on the real estate business. The assessee for real estate business has advanced money for the plots/ lands

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TAPASYA ENTERPRISES, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2100/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 24

41,251/- and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it has constituted the Deed of Partnership with effect from 10.01.2003 to carry on the real estate business. The assessee for real estate business has advanced money for the plots/ lands

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

DCIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEWARI WAREHOUSING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

House Property. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that it is providing complex & composite services such as packing, blending, storing, transporting along with other adequate facilities such as security, wooden pallets to keep the goods safe and under hygienic conditions to the parties. Thus, the predominant object

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee
Section 54Section 54F

41,756/-, which is more by ₹1,18,819/-and has to be reduced accordingly. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹1,06,07,936/- u/s 54 of the Act in respect of property/ sale of house / transferred on 03.06.2016, whereas the agreement for purchase of new property was entered into on 12.03.2014. According

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

41,000/-, treating of house property income as income from other sources and minor other additions. Loss assessed at Rs. 54,49,56,416/-. Page 2 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before

SRI PRANAB CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T , CIR - 30 ,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 217/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 217/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sri Pranab Chatterjee -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-30, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acqpc 3756 K] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the addition towards carry forward difference in opening capital from proprietory concern in the sum of Rs 5,71,102/- in the facts

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.S Sahay, FCA,, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT,ld.DR
Section 143(3)

41,569/- Turnover(Rs) 10,60,65,717/- 2,26,97,432/- Gross profit Ratio 24.19% 12.52% Net Profit/(-)Loss (Rs.) 1,15,292/- (-)29,88,574/-(loss) Net Profit Ratio 1.15% (-)13.16% 5.2. The Learned AR further pleaded that the aforesaid figures would suggest that the assessee had earned higher income as compared to last year. If the gross