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.

232 results for “house property”+ Section 49clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,785Mumbai1,657Bangalore676Karnataka602Jaipur398Chennai391Ahmedabad326Hyderabad275Kolkata232Chandigarh208Indore159Pune154Cochin137Visakhapatnam113Telangana101Surat100Amritsar71Raipur69Rajkot60Calcutta59Lucknow48Nagpur41SC38Cuttack38Guwahati25Patna22Jodhpur21Agra13Rajasthan11Allahabad10Kerala7Orissa4Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2Dehradun2Jabalpur1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Addition to Income53Section 14A44Disallowance28Deduction25Capital Gains22Section 25019Long Term Capital Gains19Section 263

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

49,40,017/- after claiming deductions on account of Corporation Tax and standard deduction was offered to tax under the head “income from house property”. The assessee-company had rendered certain services to the tenants and the gross receipts from service and maintenance charges amounting to Rs.90,38,482/- were declared by the assessee under the head “profits and gains

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 232 · Page 1 of 12

...
18
House Property13
Section 143(1)12
Section 14712
Section 22
Section 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

FALCON VINCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PR.CIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(3)

Section 27(iiib) of the Act, the appellant is treated as "deemed owner". (b) The aforesaid clause also mentions that partnership firm may take any other business as may be mutually agreed upon by the partners. 17. In the instant case, therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

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

Section 54E

49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A.” 9 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A in section

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

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

Section 54E

49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A.” 9 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A in section

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)

49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by the High Court. 14 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

ITA 788/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

49, Hissa No. 56 Village-Dasve, Taluka-Mulshi, District- Puna, Maharashtra, value of the said house property was at Rs.1,24,77,351/-. 7. Based on these facts, narrated above, the main issue before the assessing officer was that whether the assessee was eligible to claim exemption under section

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

49(i)(ii) and 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. As per the provisions of these sections, where an assessee sells an inherited capital asset, the capital gain is computed with reference to the period of holding and cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner. It is, so because in fact the successor assessee does not actually incur

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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 without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

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”. 10. The next issue before the AO was with regard to explanation with regard to unsecured loans appearing in the revised balance sheet filed in the course of assessment proceedings by the Assessee before the AO. There was unsecured loan in the liability side of the balance sheet of Rs.1,71,67,483/-. The Assessee explained sources

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. According to the assessee however each housing block in Agrini&Vajara in themselves were "housing projects". The deduction was restricted only to such units which were individually less than 1500 sq. ft. The High Court held that even though larger land area was comprised in the project named Agrini and Vajra for which master plan was approved

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

49 lacs, which in percentage terms was only 2.4%. From these facts I find that only a fraction of the net owned funds of the respective subscribing companies was invested in assessee's equity shares. assessees at the addresses specified in the respective assessment order. Since the addresses specified in the assessment orders of the respective companies tallied with

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

section 54F of the Act are enclosed herewith and marked as perAnnexure-F." 5.3 From the above submission, it is clear that the issue whether the booking of flat made by the assessee with Sahara Grace, Gurgaon in F.Y.2003-04 was for construction of flat or was for purchase of ready built house, had never been under his consideration

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1043/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCA
Section 24

49 d) Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2006) 5 SO 348 (Mumbai) From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the dispute is as to whether the assessee- company is entitled deduction for interest expenditure of Rs.2,11,44,914/- from the income earned under the head house property u/s 24(b) of the Act. The AO found that

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2000/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

49,776/- should be netted off from the interest already offered u/s 14A of the Act in computation. The AO did not consider this submission of the appellant. In this regard, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional 2 I.T.A. No. 2000/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. Oberoi Hotels (P) Limited ITAT, Kolkata in the case

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

49(iii) and explanation (iii) to section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

49(iii) and explanation (iii) to section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

section 24(1)(vi) was extended by this circular. But this could not be extended to subsequent loans, as contended by the assessee.” In the instant case original loan was provided by M/s Patton International Ltd., (holding company) from time to time for the purpose of acquisition and construction of house property by its subsidiary company (Appellant). This