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.

173 results for “house property”+ Section 293clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka435Delhi306Bangalore177Mumbai173Jaipur75Chennai51Hyderabad50Ahmedabad44Indore41Raipur35Kolkata34Pune33Amritsar31Chandigarh18Patna16Calcutta16Lucknow15Telangana12Surat6Jabalpur5Rajkot4Rajasthan3Agra3Visakhapatnam2Cochin2Cuttack2Jodhpur2Nagpur2SC2Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)73Addition to Income52Section 14843Disallowance38Section 14735Section 4035Section 271(1)(c)33Section 69A31Deduction29

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3018/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

house property’ and accordingly, disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee on the building. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3019/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024

Showing 1–20 of 173 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 14A28
Section 26328
Depreciation20
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

house property’ and accordingly, disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee on the building. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 703/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Snehal R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (DR)
Section 143(3)

properties were not used for purposes of business of the assessee at all during year under consideration . The learned CIT(A) referred to provisions of clause (ii) to Section 32(1) r.w.s. 38(2) of the 1961 Act and observed that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on premises let out although part relief was granted by learned

SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI vs. PCIT-27, VASHI

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.K.Gopal&Shri.OmKandalkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Hiren M Bhatt. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

House Property income in respect of stock-in-trade during A.Y.2018-19 corresponding to F.Y.2017-18 as this year does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 23(5) of Income Tax Act. Factually speaking in this case, assessee has offered income in various assessment years, as under: A.Y Profits Offered to Sales % of Net tax on estimated recognized

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Properties Pvt. Ltd. assessment years 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 and 2008– 09 has also accepted assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, there is no substance in the allegation of the Department that the housing project was constructed as per the unapproved plan, thereby, violating

ASIATIC STORES & SODA FOUNTAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2),

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, and in terms of its Partnership Deed, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 7, its business is stated to be that of running of Department store

ASIATIC STORES & SODA FOUNTAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2),

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 396/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, and in terms of its Partnership Deed, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 7, its business is stated to be that of running of Department store

ASIATIC STORES & SODA FOUNTAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2),

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 395/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, and in terms of its Partnership Deed, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 7, its business is stated to be that of running of Department store

ASIATIC STORES & SODA FOUNTAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3),

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 394/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, and in terms of its Partnership Deed, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 7, its business is stated to be that of running of Department store

ASIATIC STORES & SODA FOUNTAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3),

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 398/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, and in terms of its Partnership Deed, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 7, its business is stated to be that of running of Department store

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7048/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 24

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4824/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5003/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan (DR)
Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), however, he is not pressing the same. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee is 50% owner of a unit/property situated at Court Chamber, New Marine Lines, which was rented out since 1967, the rent was fixed as per agreed term at the time of letting. The assessee received

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

House Property having treated Rs.1,05,72,994/-recovered from licensees as rental income and the reasons assigned for not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. (d) Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the amount

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

house property'. A. The decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai in Appellant's own case for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 19. The Appellant wishes to submits that the issue of addition of deemed rent on account of unsold units has been dealt with

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. The ld. D.R submitted that as the addition made in respect of the variation of the annual lettable value of the property was on the basis of the figure provided by the assessee on the basis of a valuation report procured by him, therefore, it could safely be concluded that neither the issue nor the quantification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TAJ IRON AND STEEL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4382/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit 4(3)(1) M/S. Taj Iron & Steel Works R. No.649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, Carmelos Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400020. Pathak Wadi, L. T. Road, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5807H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shubham Rathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23

section 22 / 23 of the Act. The AO has in fact taxed the income (rain rent received by the Appellant as Income from House property of the Appellant. There is also no dispute to the fact that the Appellant has actually paid ground rent 2 A.Y.2012-13 charges to the I3I1' during the relevant previous year as well as the earlier

PENWALT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: V. Vidhydhar, DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first common issue in these three appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the rental income as income from house property instead of business income. Consequently, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the depreciation, maintenance

PENNWALAT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 928/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: V. Vidhydhar, DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first common issue in these three appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the rental income as income from house property instead of business income. Consequently, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the depreciation, maintenance

PENNWALT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6853/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: V. Vidhydhar, DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first common issue in these three appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the rental income as income from house property instead of business income. Consequently, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the depreciation, maintenance