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.

124 results for “house property”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,436Delhi1,368Bangalore500Jaipur330Hyderabad279Chennai274Ahmedabad205Chandigarh182Pune150Kolkata124Indore112Cochin110Rajkot87Raipur82Nagpur51Surat50SC48Visakhapatnam48Lucknow48Amritsar45Patna32Jodhpur27Agra27Guwahati26Cuttack16Dehradun14Varanasi8Allahabad6Jabalpur4Ranchi3Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income59Section 25053Section 14A35Disallowance35Section 14734Section 54F34Deduction32Section 6831Section 263

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 250Section 54F

section 54F makes\nit clear that the sale consideration not utilised by the assessee for\npurchasing or construction of residential house property shall be\ndeposited in the Capital Gain Accounts in accordance with the\nprovisions of Capital Gain Accounts Scheme, 1988. Also the assessee\nshall not have more than one residential house other than the new\nresidential house property

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Showing 1–20 of 124 · Page 1 of 7

26
Section 115J25
Condonation of Delay18
Section 142(1)
Section 143(2)
Section 250
Section 54F

Section 54F does not\npostulate that the construction has to begin on a particular date.\nAccording to Ld. AR, the only condition to be satisfied to avail the\nexemption is that, construction of house must be completed within\nthree years from the date of sale of long-term capital asset, which\nhas been met in the present case

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

section 24(a), and proposition made to make Incorrect addition of coowner's income in my total income. I wish to hereby submit that the house property in question (Oberoi Exquisite ) was considered as deemed to be let out property and I am a co-owner of the property. My share being 50

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 130/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71Section 71(4)Section 80T

house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value; (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

50, though the property was sold with existing tenants and was assessed towards rental receipt as income from house property. In our opinion, the section

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

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

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

house property. Accordingly, deduction for depreciation is not available under these sections against the rental income from the aforesaid property. Ld. AO thus rejected the claim of assessee in respect of the depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

section 24 of the IT Act, only 30% standard deduction is allowable from the said rental income. It was also seen from records that during the earlier A.Y 2016-17 the assessee has shown house property income of Rs.31,50

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

section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of 2 Bani Broto Banerjee the record, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was holding 99% share of Rainey Park Limited. The Guest House/Hotel was being run by the assessee and ultimately on account of losses faced by him, he has sold the property

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

50,41,756/-, 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

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

Section 54F can not be denied on the ground that the 10 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. assessee has not deposited the long term capital gain in the specified bank account because the assessee has invested the amount of capital gain for construction of house in the residential property as stated hereinabove nonetheless not depositing the amount

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: S/shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR

section 43(5) but it is to be taxed as profit on sale of right as income of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 6 to 8 are dismissed.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the rental income under the head house property and claimed standard deduction

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

50 SOT 391 (Kol) and Ritz Suppliers Pvt. ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kol). 3.8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee noted about the undisputed fact that only the leasehold rights in an industrial plot of land has been transferred to SMI for a total consideration

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

50,000/- claimed in the return of income u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, we note that said deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property and the assessee provided true and fully disclosure of details of income, loan details etc. We have gone through