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.

415 results for “house property”+ Section 111clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi553Karnataka486Mumbai415Bangalore168Jaipur127Hyderabad99Chennai76Ahmedabad70Telangana59Cochin57Calcutta50Chandigarh44Kolkata44Amritsar40Raipur35Indore34Pune28Lucknow26Cuttack19Rajkot17Agra15Surat14SC14Patna14Rajasthan9Jodhpur9Guwahati7Orissa4Nagpur4Panaji3Allahabad3Visakhapatnam2Ranchi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)61Addition to Income47Disallowance45Section 26341Section 14A38Section 14733Section 14827Section 143(2)25Penalty25Section 271(1)(c)

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 415 · Page 1 of 21

...
22
Deduction22
Section 145A18
ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

111. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not justified in disallowing the security charges by reallocating the same to income from house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

house property income. For substantiating the same the relevant part of agreement reads as under. i. "Common Area Maintenance ("CAM") charge for the entire period of 36 (thirty-six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs.15/-(Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to Rs.35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. MAGNUS PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5944/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–9(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11Th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aadcm7520M

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

house property. Accordingly, he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (D.R.) relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, while completing the original assessment the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue relating to the proper head under which the rental income is to be assessed. Therefore, he submitted, there being

ACIT - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY CYRUS INVESTMENTS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6414/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6414/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of बिाम/ M/S Cyrus Investments Income-Tax-1(1)(1) Private Limited 579, Aayakar Bhawan Esplanade House, Fort V. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

Section 23(1)(a) . He drew our attention to page 10-11 of paper book wherein detailed computation for computing income chargeable to tax under the head „Income from House Property‟ is placed w.r.t. both the flats. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO erred in adopting market value of rent being Rs. 200 per square feet

SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI vs. PCIT-27, VASHI

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.K.Gopal&Shri.OmKandalkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Hiren M Bhatt. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 22 of the Act, therefore, I am of the considered view that the annual value of the flats owned by the assessee, forming part of the closing stock is taxable under the Head "Income from House Property". While making the assessment of the AY 2017-18, the AO has not taxed the annual value of the flats forming part

NILUFER SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

Section 54(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as only one house property ignoring the explanations and submissions made before him. 2 Nilufer Sayed Assessment Year: 2011-12 2) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding view of the then Assessing Officer in disallowing the part

HAMLET CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1315/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh
Section 115JSection 14Section 80I

111-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai - 400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCH1677E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla Department by : Shri P.R. Ghosh Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3607/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3607/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3608/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3609/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Ashapura Developers Tax, Circle 32(1), Room No. 702, 101B, Hallmark Business 7Th Floor, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak फनाभ/ Bhavan, G Block Bandra Kurla Hospital, Ant Gyaneshwar Complex Bandra (East), Marg, Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aanfa1971F अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-44, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita Nos. 3607-3608/Mum/2019 M/S Ashapura Developers; Ays 13-14 To 15-16 Appeal No. Cit(A)-44/Jcit-32(1)/It-209 & 696A/16-17 & Even Date 22.03.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 32(1), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 11.03.2016, 30.12.2016, 12.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, AR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Act. Consequently the deduction available on the account of repair and maintenance could not be availed of by the respondent. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30 December 2010, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). By an order dated 25th March, 2011 the CIT(A) allowed

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

section 23(1)(a). The annual value would, therefore, be determined notionally as done in the case in hand by the Assessing Officer and concurrently upheld by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. [Para 13] In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed. [Para 15]" In view of the facts of the case of the appellant and respectfully following

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

section 23(1)(a). The annual value would, therefore, be determined notionally as done in the case in hand by the Assessing Officer and concurrently upheld by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. [Para 13] In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed. [Para 15]" In view of the facts of the case of the appellant and respectfully following

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

section 23(1)(a). The annual value would, therefore, be determined notionally as done in the case in hand by the Assessing Officer and concurrently upheld by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. [Para 13] In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed. [Para 15]" In view of the facts of the case of the appellant and respectfully following

WHITE ROSE HOLDINGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7395/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN AAACW0478K (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By : Shri Hari S. Raheja Date of Hearing :25.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement :24.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member 1. The assessee by way of this appeal is challenging the order dated 31.10.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income