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.

10 results for “house property”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10Hyderabad5Delhi2Visakhapatnam2Jaipur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 4011Section 115J11Section 1959Section 44B7Deduction5Disallowance5Section 9(1)(vi)4Section 40A(9)4Section 143(3)4Double Taxation/DTAA4Section 80I3Permanent Establishment2

ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALORE REFINER & PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1240/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Maker Tower-F Wing, 16Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Pan:Aaacm 5132 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1826/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai-400 005. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chohan-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri S.E. Dastur & Madhur Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17/05/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2009,Of Cit (A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee- Company, Engaged In The Business Of Refining Of Crude Oil, Selling Of Petroleum Products & Captive Generation & Distribution Of Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 25/10/2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18/12/2008, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil.

For Appellant: S/ Shri S.E. Dastur and Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chohan-CIT-DR
Section 143
Section 40A(9)

housing loan)as business income as against income from other sources. Representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue was decided against the AO by the Tribunal,while adjudicating the appeal for the AY.s. 1999-2000 (supra), 2001-02(supra)and 2004-05(ITA/6385/Mum/2008,dtd.23.11.2016) and 2005- 06 (supra)as well as by the judgments

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3565/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

house property. 20. As far as profits and gains of business or profession are concerned by section 28 these are set out. The income therein shall be chargeable to income tax under this head and the clause thereof would indicate as to how the sub-headings of compensation, income derived by trade, professional or similar association from specific service performed

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA ( MSC), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1391/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)Section 147

House, Andheri Kurla Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 4945 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue by : Shri Samuel Darse Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar : 24.05.2018 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: These are appeals by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee arising

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – Vs. M/S. Msc Mediterranean 400 038 Shipping Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.137/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Msc Vs. Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – 400 Mediterranean Shipping 038 Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Narendra Kumar Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar

Section 144CSection 44B

House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 PAN/GIR No. AACCM4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Narendra Kumar Assessee by Shri Nishant Thakkar Date of Hearing 08/05/2017 Date of Pronouncement 25/05/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the order of Dispute

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4448/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & Addl Cit 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-Wing, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal /Ronak Desai प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Samuel Darse सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/06/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Samuel Darse
Section 115JSection 14ASection 40Section 44Section 44B

44B. 6.3.2.It is said that the Act,being a taxing statute,has to be understood by reference to its language and that it is not the function of the judicial forums to stretch a taxing statute to rope in items of income which are not explicitly covered by the relevant taxing provision. No income can be brought to taxation

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

44B read with afore stated circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995, we hold that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and we order deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 9,60,431/- u/s 40(a)(ia) as made by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). The assessee succeeds on this ground. We order accordingly

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6595/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

housing project shall be 100% of the "profit derived" in the previous year. It means only deduction is available from the profit under that Section whereas u/s.115JB, book profit as computed under Companies Act, 1956 is to be subjected to MAT. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld. A.R. is legally not enable. The ratio of DCW Ltd. vs. DCIT

NAN LION SHIP MANAGEMENT LLC,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das
Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

house flag and this inter alia means that at all time, the possession and the ownership was with the assessee company and PSCL was only using the ship on a time charter basis. In support, he drew our attention to various clauses of the agreement. Thus, when the assessee had all the control over the vessel, the same cannot

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1023/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234D

property in goods as well as the payment, were carried on outside the Indian soil, the transaction could not have been taxed in India. (3) The principle of apportionment, wherein the territorial jurisdiction of a particular state determines its capacity to tax an event, has to be followed. (4) The fact that the contract was signed in India