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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 27iclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4Mumbai2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Section 1483Section 143(3)3Penalty2Set Off of Losses2

GOVARDHAN G VANANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

House, Mumbai-4 PAN : AABPV5861F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri BV Jhaveri Respondent by Shri V Vidhyadhar Date of hearing 17-05-2018 Date of pronouncement 15-06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai dated

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai
28 Mar 2018
AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

27I(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim caused by "bona fide mistake" The AO levied s. 271 (1)(c) penalty in respect of two issues: (i) claim of depreciation in respect of properties that were assessed under the head "house property" and (ii) claim of deduction in respect of provision for income-tax. The CIT (A) & Tribunal deleted the penalty