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.

848 results for “house property”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai848Delhi813Karnataka491Bangalore301Chennai159Hyderabad156Jaipur155Kolkata113Ahmedabad95Chandigarh68Pune63Raipur54Calcutta53Telangana40Lucknow39Rajkot38Indore35Surat24Nagpur23Agra21Visakhapatnam18Cuttack18SC15Cochin12Rajasthan10Amritsar7Guwahati7Patna6Varanasi5Allahabad4Jodhpur4Panaji4Orissa3Dehradun2Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)81Addition to Income63Disallowance35Section 143(2)23Section 14A23Section 1123Section 14721Section 25021Section 14820

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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 848 · Page 1 of 43

...
Deduction20
Section 6817
Penalty15
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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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 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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

200/- the Assessee filed NIL return of income. 3. The Assessing officer has treated Property No. 1 at Palghar Wada, Property No. 2 at Thane Atlas tower Flat No.1, and Property No. 3. Kamla Space unit no. 209 at Santacruz as Deemed Rental Property and assessed income from House property at Rs.20,61,170/- (AO Page NO. 4, para

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

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exemrjt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 14.6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

house' and, accordingly, assessee was entitled to benefit conferred under section 54(1) - Held, yes" Ground No. 2 Disallowance of ₹.13,00,000/- being the litigation expenses incurred in respect of the sale of disputed property  On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing

M/S OSHO DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-32 , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2372/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2372 & 1860/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Osho Developers Acit-32, Mumbai Bldg. No. C-11, 3Rd Floor, Osho, Plot No. 1534A, New Link Road, Vs. Room No. 306, Devki Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabfo2984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate & Ms.Neelam Jadhav, A.R Respondent By: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-44, Mumbai, Dated 08.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Sec.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 02.12.2016 & 30.11.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 & A.Y. 2015-16, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked Or In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Therefore Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Wherein The Impugned Order Has Been Assailed Before Us On The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22

200 3763560 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 2. 300 3826760 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 3. 1300 3826760 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 4. 1400 3763560 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 5. 1500 3826760 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 6. 1600 3763560 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 7. 1700 3826760 Occupation Certificate received on 31.01.2013 8. 1800 3763560 Occupation Certificate

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

property amounting to Rs. 3,43,72,529/- should also be added to the sale consideration. The assessee thereupon claimed that if the cost of construction incurred by the builder is to be added to the sale price, then the same should also be correspondingly taken to have been invested in the residential house namely the two floors which

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

section 54 of the Act, by observing as under: ―8.3 In respect of the other two properties, the assessee has not entered in to any agreement for purchase. He had only a right to acquire the property by way of the allotment letter. So what is surrendered is only the right to acquire the property and not the residential property

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

property amounting to Rs. 3,43,72,529/- should also be added to the sale consideration. The assessee thereupon claimed that if the cost of construction incurred by the builder is to be added to the sale price, then the same should also be correspondingly taken to have been invested in the residential house namely the two floors which

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2595/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

property for more than 35 years on a monthly rent of ₹.600/- and on the demise of Mr. Noel Tata in May, 1989 his Tenancy/occupancy rights devolved upon his family members i.e. Ms. Simone Tata in accordance with the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 popularly known

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2596/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

property for more than 35 years on a monthly rent of ₹.600/- and on the demise of Mr. Noel Tata in May, 1989 his Tenancy/occupancy rights devolved upon his family members i.e. Ms. Simone Tata in accordance with the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 popularly known

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6857/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

property for more than 35 years on a monthly rent of ₹.600/- and on the demise of Mr. Noel Tata in May, 1989 his Tenancy/occupancy rights devolved upon his family members i.e. Ms. Simone Tata in accordance with the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 popularly known

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2594/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

property for more than 35 years on a monthly rent of ₹.600/- and on the demise of Mr. Noel Tata in May, 1989 his Tenancy/occupancy rights devolved upon his family members i.e. Ms. Simone Tata in accordance with the provisions of section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 popularly known