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.

282 results for “house property”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,847Mumbai1,708Bangalore697Karnataka604Chennai378Jaipur362Ahmedabad360Hyderabad323Kolkata282Pune200Chandigarh181Indore171Cochin163Surat121Telangana114Visakhapatnam109Amritsar85Raipur74Calcutta56Nagpur48Lucknow46Cuttack44Rajkot41SC37Agra35Guwahati30Patna26Jodhpur19Kerala11Varanasi9Rajasthan7Allahabad6Ranchi5Panaji4Orissa4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)91Addition to Income52Section 14A37Disallowance32Section 194L30Section 143(2)26Section 25023Deduction22Section 26320

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)Section 22Section 27

property. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 35. We further note that identical view has been expressed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the following cases holding that the flats which remained vacant and unsold, no deemed ALV thereof could be assessed as income u/s 23 of the Act. - C.R. Development

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 282 · Page 1 of 15

...
Limitation/Time-bar17
Section 37(1)13
Section 13213
ITAT Kolkata
31 Jul 2018
AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

house property’. We note that the A.O further inferred that since excepting allotment money, all other installment payments were made within a period of 36 months, the properties in question must not be treated as long term capital assets’ and profit arisen out of said transactions could not be considered as ‘long term capital gains. We note that the definition

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

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

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

house property’. We note that the A.O further inferred that since excepting allotment money, all other installment payments were made within a period of 36 months, the properties in question must not be treated as long term capital assets’ and profit arisen out of said transactions could not be considered as ‘long term capital gains. We note that the definition

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

house rent property income or rent taken by him while leasing out this property. In other words, ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that this interest expenditure should have been adjusted under section 57 of the Income Tax Act and it is not admissible to the assessee in the computation made under section 48

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

house property income ought to have been 2 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited assessed as a business income and he took action under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, he passed an order under section 263 on 15.03.2019, copy of this order is available on pages no. 20 to 25 of the paper book

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

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 which were sold during relevant year and STCG of Rs.3,16,04,127/- was declared. The stamp duty value of the properties was Rs.9,91,43,740/-, which for the purpose of section 48

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-23(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDIP ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

ITA 2864/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 55A

section 48 prescribing indexed cost of acquisition were enacted by the Finance Act, 1992. Memorandum explaining the Provisions of Finance Bill, 1992 explained that old provisions relating to taxation of capital gain were unfair because the deduction u/s 48 was being allowed in respect of cost of acquisition which did not relate to the period of time for which

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act ‘] dated 30.03.2015 for the Asst Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 54 / 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 666/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

48,359/-, being enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act being capital borrowed was not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal in both the years 15. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had made such advances for acquisition of real estate properties

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 581/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

48,359/-, being enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act being capital borrowed was not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal in both the years 15. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had made such advances for acquisition of real estate properties

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 665/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

48,359/-, being enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act being capital borrowed was not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal in both the years 15. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had made such advances for acquisition of real estate properties

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

48,359/-, being enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act being capital borrowed was not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal in both the years 15. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had made such advances for acquisition of real estate properties

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2440/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

section 48 of the Act. The net sale consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset is a consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. There is difference between net sale consideration and full value consideration. In our considered view, if the assessee invests net sale consideration for the purpose of purchase/construction of new residential house property

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 in relation to cash credit. In that decision the Calcutta High Court made the following observations: "In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income tax assessee. After getting the PAN number

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

Properties vs. DCIT (138 ITD 278) the A/R of the assessee claimed that it was prevented by factors beyond its control and therefore the beneficial deduction should not be denied on technical grounds. Having considered the relevant decision of the ITAT I am however unable to agree with the A/R's contentions. In the case decided by ITAT Pune