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.

73 results for “house property”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi919Mumbai803Bangalore282Hyderabad170Jaipur163Chandigarh130Chennai115Ahmedabad103Cochin73Indore73Kolkata73Pune56Raipur52SC36Nagpur35Rajkot30Lucknow26Guwahati22Agra21Surat21Cuttack17Jodhpur16Visakhapatnam15Patna11Amritsar6Jabalpur2Dehradun2Varanasi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)54Addition to Income40Section 14A39Section 26331Disallowance31Section 25026Section 14724Section 115J22Section 2(22)19

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

Section 2(22)(e)16
Deduction14
Depreciation12
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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

section 22 to 27 of the Act can be granted for computing the income of the property. Accordingly, claim of deduction towards Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 depreiation on the said property u/s. 32 is not available. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the finding given

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

65,68,750/- the index cost of which worked out to 3,73,85,897/-. However, in the ITR filed for the current assessment year, the index cost was taken at ₹37,50,41,756/-, which is more by ₹1,18,819/-and has to be reduced accordingly. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction

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

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 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

65,866/- as against Rs.65,16,054/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6.1. Assessee has filed a computation sheet and also the calculation of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. First thing that we observe is that income from house property of Rs.2,20,000/- cannot be held to be eligible for deduction

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1334/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Saurabh Bagaria, ARFor Respondent: P.P Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 263Section 40Section 57

65,590/- and u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 1,15,15,963/-. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been considered. Ground Nos. 2, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 relate to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. AO disallowed the claim by issuing notice to the assessee and as per the computation

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1320/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

65,000/- as attributable to earning other income in the computation of income, which has been allowed, hence no more expenses were allowable as attributable to earning interest on its deposit with other banks. Therefore, he held that a sum of Rs. 2,83,02,934/- was not allowable as eligible for deduction under section

S.K.DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1874/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 S. K. Development Private Deputycommissioner Of Limited. Income-Tax,Circle- 5(1), Vs. 23A, N. S. Road, 10Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcs7398K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

house property income. 3 S.K. Development Private Limited AY: 2013-14 For the other component of Rs.3,65,700/-, Ld. Counsel referred to the details of its dealings in immovable properties during the year for which brokerage expenses were incurred. The details are tabulated as under: Brokerage charges against sale of space 01­Apr­2012 to 31­Mar­2013

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

65,52,344/- on account of purchase/consideration of the house on the land purchased from Goenkas. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the land in question was leasehold property allotted by Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADDA’) through Shri Ashoke Goenka and other and that the assessee has purchase right in the property from these persons

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

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

section 48. 12. The note of submission filed by the assessee is as under: “1. One Bengal Flour Mill acquired the property being house no. 32. Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah on 7th January 1910. The name of Bengal Flour mill was subsequently changed to BEM Industries Ltd. (Please see Development agreement dated 1st January 2007 at page

PRESSMAN REALTY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

house property and were wrongly charged into the profit and loss account. Finally the AO rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of loss of 1,11,05,354/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2016. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO on this issue by holding that

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

House, J.L. Nehru Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Vs Road, Kolkata - 700071 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AABCR3494H) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Bikash Chanda, CA Respondent by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

65 taxmann.com 142) (iii) Hari Mohan Das Tandon (HUF) Vs PCIT [Allahabad Trib.] (iv) Vasant L. Khandge Vs ITO [Pune Trib.] Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that the jurisdiction of ld. PCIT is invalid and deserved to be quashed on this score alone. d). The third proposition of the ld. Counsel with regard to the acquisition of freehold land on which

M/S. BHUMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

65,428/- u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D whereas there was no exempt income. 7. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdrawn any ground(s) of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. Before us, the ld. AR argued that all relevant facts and documents were placed before the ld. AO/ld

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

house property and business or profession. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, the reasons being large commission expenses and low net profit and low net profit or less shown from large gross receipt. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee which were

BARDHAMAN DISHARI SHRAMIK O JANAALYAN SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

ITA 1722/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80P

65,00,000/- through the P & L account could be explained by the appellant, the AO by an order u/s 143(3)/263/ 143(3) of the Act dated 20.02.2014, added back the impugned sum. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred this appeal.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 18.06.2024 has held that issue of deduction

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

65,19,384/- after making disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs.27,03,900/- and disallowance u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 1,34,735/-. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for by the ld.PCIT and after examining of the same the ld. PCIT observed that assessee has received loan