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.

6 results for “house property”+ Section 452clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka298Delhi221Mumbai129Ahmedabad42Jaipur37Bangalore25Hyderabad15Chandigarh13Lucknow12Chennai9Indore8Kolkata6Pune5Surat4Telangana4SC3Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Gauhati1Jodhpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 406Section 1954Disallowance4Addition to Income4TDS3Section 143(3)2Double Taxation/DTAA2Deduction2

SINGHI & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 971/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Singhi & Co., Acit, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Circle-54, 54/1, Rafi Kolkata-700001. Ahmed Kidwai Road, Pan-Aasfs9578D Kolkata-700016. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By Sh. Pradip Majumden, Addl. Cit. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

452 (Allahabad), in the case of CIT vs Naidunia News & Networking P.Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 422 (Madhya Pradesh) and in the case of Sakal Papers P.Ltd. Vs CIT [1978] 114 ITR 256 (Bom.). We find no evidence whatsoever filed before us or before the authorities below except contract 3 [Assessment Year: 2010-11] dated 05.10.2008 for education cost, partnership agreement

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 Kolkata
26 Oct 2021
AY 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

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1088/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

housing project. The payment made to ATCA Singapore was for project specific designs which the assessee was to use only for the particular project. Although the assessee purchased the drawings & designs but it did not involve transfer of any technology. We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. AR’s contentions that the payment in question did not fall within

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1290/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

housing project. The payment made to ATCA Singapore was for project specific designs which the assessee was to use only for the particular project. Although the assessee purchased the drawings & designs but it did not involve transfer of any technology. We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. AR’s contentions that the payment in question did not fall within

I.T.O WD - 54(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BIJAYA KUMAR SAHOO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80J

452 and income from other sources Rs. 47,690/- The assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 80 JJA of the Act against the income from the sale of bio degradable waste. Thereafter ITA No.1990/Kol/2013 & CO 47/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO Wd-54(1), Kol. vs. Bijaya Kr. Sahoo Page 3 the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

house quality system called Quality Assurance System (QAS). This covers various aspects including certification of ISO guidelines, GMP (US FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices guidelines) , HACCP (Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points, a food safety monitoring system of the food industry). The assessee’s product range spans across various types of tea products (including black tea, green