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.

12 results for “house property”+ Section 245C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad43Mumbai12Delhi5Bangalore3Jaipur3Pune2SC2Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 229Bogus Purchases7Section 143(3)6Addition to Income5Section 23(5)3Section 233Section 153A3House Property3

DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. LATE SHRI SAWARMAL HISARIA THROUGH L/H SANDEEP HISARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 11. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Canara Housing Development. However, in view of the binding decision

M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1558/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1559/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1560/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1846/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1851/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1557/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

OBEROI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4803/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

house property as his stock-in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 (1), MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALTY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5128/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

house property as his stock-in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view

OBEROI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4802/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

house property as his stock-in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE-CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAJIV RATAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah
Section 153CSection 245D(4)

properties brought before the Settlement Commission and hence any further addition made by the Assessing Officer would result in a case of double addition 8.3 In this connection, Ld CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant para 68 on Page 72 of the Order passed by Hon Settlement Commission at Page no. 12 of this impugned order which is as under