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.

399 results for “house property”+ Section 249clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka436Mumbai399Delhi366Bangalore82Chandigarh79Jaipur77Hyderabad59Ahmedabad55Cochin43Indore41Amritsar34Kolkata33Pune29Chennai27Calcutta16Raipur14Visakhapatnam10Rajkot9Telangana8Surat7Patna7Rajasthan4Agra4SC4Dehradun2Lucknow2Cuttack2Nagpur2Andhra Pradesh1Guwahati1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)76Addition to Income66Section 1146Section 14740Section 143(1)37Section 14A29Disallowance29Section 6825Section 153C22

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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 399 · Page 1 of 20

...
Section 1022
Long Term Capital Gains22
Exemption21
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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

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)

249 2,58,525 2,04,525 5. On the basis of details available on record, only a small portion was found to be personal in nature and therefore disallowance was restricted by the Tribunal even less than 10% of the alleged expenses. As addition and disallowance has been made on estimated basis both by learned

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 713/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property, undisclosed income and disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

TULSI SHIPPING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 5708/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147

249 ITR 47 (Kolkata). In fact, a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would reveal that the Hon’ble Court 9 M/s. Tulsi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5708/Mum/2015 & 5558/Mum/2016 clearly negated that merely because the income is attached to any immoveable property, that cannot