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.

133 results for “house property”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,397Delhi5,031Bangalore1,885Chennai1,699Kolkata999Hyderabad978Jaipur965Ahmedabad963Pune943Karnataka867Chandigarh526Cochin380Indore371Surat363Visakhapatnam343Telangana240Amritsar202Rajkot165Raipur152Cuttack144Nagpur144Lucknow133Agra95SC88Patna87Calcutta80Jodhpur73Guwahati56Dehradun47Allahabad37Ranchi35Varanasi26Rajasthan24Jabalpur23Kerala22Panaji17Orissa9Punjab & Haryana6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1ANIL R. DAVE L. NAGESWARA RAO1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 11115Addition to Income71Section 2(15)62Section 143(3)60Section 12A50Section 26348Exemption38Section 14836Section 14728Natural Justice

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 133 · Page 1 of 7

28
Disallowance27
Section 69A25

house property”. It was further submitted that under the head income from “income from house property

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 353/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69

house property, other than the new investment in house property situated at \nLucknow at the time

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 113/LKW/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

house property at Rs.26,49,780/- shown in the return under the head ‘Income from House Property

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

house property here in Lucknow ii. In its pursuance the said Geeta Awasthi sold off lands properties

SUSHIL TULI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

ITA 553/LKW/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 May 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A. R. Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 22

House property which it do not satisfy, 1) That the assessee must be the Owner of the Property

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 347/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

house property situated at Lucknow without appreciating that the assessee had owned property more than three houses

RAVI SHANKAR DUBEY,LUCKNOW vs. D CIY RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 244/LKW/2023[F.Y. 2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 24

house property against the income chargeable under the head "income from house property" 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 348/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69

property more than\nthree house property other ling the new investment in house property situated

SHRI JASMINDER SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 562/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

Section 11Section 40

property at House No. J-5, Ashiyana, Lucknow by taking the housing loan from Tata Capital Housing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

ITA 405/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69Section 69A

property more than\n7 house property situated at Lucknow at the time of transfer of property

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/LKW/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

House Property’. In support of this assertion, an Interest Certificate has been included. ITA Nos. 795 to 798/LKW/2024

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 352/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69

house property situated at\nLucknow without appreciating that the assessee had ownership of more than\nthree properties

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 390/LKW/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 392/LKW/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 393/LKW/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 391/LKW/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 394/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs.11,15,000 in construction of the house