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.

172 results for “house property”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,591Mumbai1,298Karnataka564Bangalore511Chennai333Ahmedabad315Jaipur275Hyderabad183Kolkata172Surat170Cochin133Chandigarh113Indore108Pune99Telangana98Raipur64Calcutta55Lucknow46Visakhapatnam43Cuttack43Rajkot41Nagpur31SC26Amritsar19Dehradun15Agra15Jodhpur14Patna9Guwahati7Rajasthan7Allahabad6Varanasi5Orissa4Ranchi4Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)105Addition to Income50Section 26335Section 14A35Section 14731House Property28Deduction28Disallowance28Section 143(2)20

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

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

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) ..

Showing 1–20 of 172 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 14820
Section 115W20
Section 25017
Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

property. This amendment will take effect from 1st April. 2001 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2001-2002 and subsequent years. 14. We note that ld A.O was fully satisfied on the explanation of the assessee in regard to the long term capital gain earned from selling of shares of M/s Benzo Chem Industries Private

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

63,468/- derived from its warehouse as income form house property instead of business income. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion qua the instant latter issue reads as under:- “5.2. I have considered the submissions of the AR and perused various judicial decisions cited before me in support of the appellant's claim. I have also examined the impugned order

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

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

house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24Section 263Section 68

house property”. Therefore, AO has examined the issue relating to income from commercial go- down and then took a possible view, hence order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 is not erroneous. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel also pointed out that in assessee`s case a search and seizure operation was conducted under section

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

house is not of "Construction" but of "purchase" to justify her claim for deduction u/s.54 and 54F. The AO should then, after examining the entire facts of the case and taking into consideration the explanation of the assessee, determine whether the assessee acquired the new flat by way of "Construction" or by way of "purchase" after taking into account

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

63,946/-. During the year under consideration, the assesee-company had earned dividend income of Rs.10,88,37,814/- on the investment made in Shares and Units of Mutual Funds and the same was claimed to be exempt from tax. As noticed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee-company had disallowed only the direct expenses and indirect expenses

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 711/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48(2)Section 54

section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house 2 Alok Ghosh, AYs: 2016-17 property. Hence it is prayed that arbitrary addition of Rs.13,23,960/- be directed to be deleted from the head of "Long Term Capital Gain" by making correct computation by allowing

ACIT, CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RESHMI P LOYALKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1763/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hanshing, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

63,162). Subsequently the amounts were withdrawn by the assessee from Capital Gain Deposit Account and proceeds utilized for construction of house within the prescribed time. The assessee claimed that she thus spent / utilized for construction of the three row houses including the cost of land for use of herself and her family. Even though there were 3 structures / buildings

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA MUMBAI TRUCK TERMINAL LTD, HOWRAH

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.S Sahay, FCA,, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT,ld.DR
Section 143(3)

63,334/- which is higher by Rs. 1,23,83,906/- as compared to last year. Similarly the net profit going by last year/s rate would have been a net loss of Rs. 1,39,58,248/- (10,60,65,717 * (-) 13.16%), while the net profit for the year is Rs. 1,15,292/- , which is higher

PIYUSH MOHAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 24Section 263Section 48

section 48 of the Act. According to him, assessee appears to have availed double deduction of interest on housing loan firstly at the time of furnishing return of income every year under the head loss from self occupied house property and secondly at the time of computing LTCG as claiming the same interest as direct expenses related to transfer

M/S. SORMISTHA BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ASANSOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) M/S Sormistha Builders & Vs. Acit/Circle-1/Asansol-713304 Construction (P) Limited, Senreleigh Road, West Apcar Gardens, Asansol-4, Dist-Burdwan-713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics 8345 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.N.Ram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabal Choudhury, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.234/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Asl/11-12, Dated 01.12.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 11.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 12.01.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,63,098/-. Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. M/S Sormistha Builders & Construction (P) Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabal Choudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 28

63,098/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act and the AO has completed the assessment by making various additions. M/s Sormistha Builders & Construction (P) Ltd. 3. Aggrieved from the order of ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the additions made

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

63,488/- and the cost of acquisition of the building comes to ₹18,95,122/- for the purpose of Long-Term Capital Gain. Thereafter the ld. AO computed the Long-Term Capital Gain of the property at ₹5,18,74,075/-. Thereafter the ld. AO noted that the assessee has offered income from rental of ₹2,11,609/-, whereas according

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT MADHU DEVI SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1131/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 14A

House Property income at R.4,20,000/- without any logic or on the basis of any documents instead of Rs.8,40,000/- determining on the basis of report of Departmental inspector. (iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at any time of hearing.” Shri Arinram Bhattacharjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

63,89,91,819/-. Case selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Various details called for by ld. AO were submitted. On going through the same ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 10,87,28,000/- on account of compensation paid to Mr. Kunal Saha

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT MADHU DEVI SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Keshari, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251

63,044/- and interest from PPF amounting to Rs. 4,77,417/-. The assessee voluntarily disallowed the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on an ad hoc basis u/s 14A of the Act in the original return of income. In the original assessment, the Ld. AO observed that though the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules works

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2193/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54FSection 55A

63,610/-. The market value of the property determined for stamp duty purposes was Rs.96,30,000/-. The assessee had claimed that his case fell under Section 54F(a) and therefore claimed the entire sum of Rs.24,60,000/- by way of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. AO however held that the 'net consideration' for the purposes