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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 50Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai25Raipur17Delhi10Amritsar3Telangana3Pune2Hyderabad2Chennai2Cochin2Ahmedabad2Kolkata2Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 25Section 143(3)2Section 115J2

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

50B of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground no. 1: “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in treating itemized sale of the assets of the Chemical Unit of your petitioner as being slump sale and accordingly confirming

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1369/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1369/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 7Th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Gupta, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

Property Act, 1882. It then rejected the contention of the revenue that the transaction of 20" February, 1956 was a sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was a transfer but by way of exchange. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then held thus - "We pass on to consider the argument of Mr. Narasaraju that in revenue matters