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.

67 results for “house property”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Delhi32Jaipur7Kolkata7Chennai3Surat2Bangalore2Pune1Rajkot1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A92Section 115J56Section 143(3)43Addition to Income33Disallowance32Section 14826Section 145A18Deduction18Section 80I14Section 54F

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 3512
Depreciation8

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

ITA 545/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to ", to bring into operation, the proviso to Section ", to bring into operation, the proviso to 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if . The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if . The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACT1507C] Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1(1), Mumbai …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri K.K. Mishra For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Shri Hardik Nirmal Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 27.05.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACT1507C] Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1(1), Mumbai …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri K.K. Mishra For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Shri Hardik Nirmal Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 27.05.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

House, Aayakar Bhavan 5th Floor, 104 5th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACB4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S. Vankatraman Revenue by Shri Shishir Dhamija Date of Hearing 05/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5428/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2011-12 arises

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

property and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof" iii. "Compensation is paid for work measured by results achieved. iv. "Commission" generally denotes the compensation which a person can receive on sales" A producer or manufacturer of goods, generally does not sell his goods directly to the ultimate consumer. There are agents who purchase the goods from the manufacturer

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

property and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof" iii. "Compensation is paid for work measured by results achieved. iv. "Commission" generally denotes the compensation which a person can receive on sales" A producer or manufacturer of goods, generally does not sell his goods directly to the ultimate consumer. There are agents who purchase the goods from the manufacturer

KARANJA TERMINAL & LOGISTICS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble Accountantmember & Shri Ramlal Negi, Hon'Ble Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas
Section 115JSection 147Section 148

property, it could also set up another line of business, it might even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There was no M/s. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. 8. It is well-settled that tax is attracted

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

115J.” 23. In view of the above, once assessee’s accounts have been maintained in accordance with Companies Act and the same have also been scrutinised and audited by the statutory auditor, in absence of any material to negate these facts, the AO has limited power under section 115 JB of the Act to make adjustment to book profit only

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

115J.” 23. In view of the above, once assessee’s accounts have been maintained in accordance with Companies Act and the same have also been scrutinised and audited by the statutory auditor, in absence of any material to negate these facts, the AO has limited power under section 115 JB of the Act to make adjustment to book profit only

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

115J.” 23. In view of the above, once assessee’s accounts have been maintained in accordance with Companies Act and the same have also been scrutinised and audited by the statutory auditor, in absence of any material to negate these facts, the AO has limited power under section 115 JB of the Act to make adjustment to book profit only

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

115J.” 23. In view of the above, once assessee’s accounts have been maintained in accordance with Companies Act and the same have also been scrutinised and audited by the statutory auditor, in absence of any material to negate these facts, the AO has limited power under section 115 JB of the Act to make adjustment to book profit only

J. B BODA & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Indra Anand, Ld. ARFor Respondent: A.Mohan, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

House property. The aforesaid addition was made while arriving at the normal income as well as while computing book profits u/s 115JB. Since tax liability u/s 115JB was higher, the assessee was liable to pay tax as per MAT provisions u/s 115JB. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by aforesaid adjustment u/s 115JB, agitated the same without any success before

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6228/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2013-14
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

Property Act. It is in these circumstances that the present question has been referred to us. 4. We find that the issue at hand, is already decided by this Court in the matter of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vide judgment dated 11th December, 2014 to which one of us (Shri

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5276/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 10Section 14A

house property as the assessee has not challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Having said so, the only issue arising for consideration before us is, whether the notional interest charged on interest free security deposit can be considered to be a part of the fair rent. On a plain reading of section