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.

275 results for “house property”+ Section 4Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi445Mumbai275Karnataka190Bangalore146Chennai102Jaipur92Hyderabad63Cochin62Ahmedabad55Pune38Lucknow33Chandigarh32Kolkata32Indore20Surat15Amritsar14Cuttack10Telangana9Nagpur8SC8Varanasi6Guwahati6Raipur6Rajkot5Agra4Dehradun3Calcutta2Kerala1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 11117Section 143(3)65Section 2(15)57Exemption38Section 12A34Addition to Income33Section 1021Charitable Trust21Penalty20Section 13(8)

M/S QUALITY APPAREL EXPORTERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

house property and applied the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(a) of the Act in respect of annual value of the property and assessed the total income after allowing the deduction of municipal taxes paid and deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the contentions are that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 275 · Page 1 of 14

...
18
Deduction17
Section 10(20)15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 3088/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

house property and thus the\nprovisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will\nnot apply in the assessee

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

house property and thus the provisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Lalit Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anu A.G.Bhatkar (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Kishor Chaudhari
Section 11

property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held, and where a claim is made that the income of any such undertaking shall not be included in the total income of the persons in receipt thereof, the 7 ITA No.3808/Mum/2015. Institute of Chemical Technology. [Assessing] Officer shall have power to determine the income of such undertaking in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR
Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(v) by the assessing officer can be corrected u/s. 292B of the IT Act and the income is to be assessed u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) of the IT Act." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sale price for shares of PBPL

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11
Section 12ASection 80G

property held in\ntrust for charitable purposes. It is submitted that the assessee\ninvested the amounts in fixed deposit over period of Time, which is\npermitted mode under section 11 (5) of the act. It is submitted that,\nthe amount is out of accumulation of income under section 11, and\nalso account of receipt from corporate donations. The Ld.AR thus

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors Realtors

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1514/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3077/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

house property and thus the provisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

house property and thus the provisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2275/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 113/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10Section 11Section 14Section 24Section 250

house property let out assesse, and toward which it has (subsequently) a single precise ground. The claim is, by all counts, without merit. This is for the simple reason that the income of a charitable trust or institution, subject to its application for charitable purposes, for which it has been in fact formed (per its Constituting charter) is exempt from

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Appeal stands disposed off as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2180/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 263

house training programme, and consultancy activities were part of educational activities. There is no change in facts. The activities of the Appellant being educational activities, the question of treating them as separate business and maintaining separate books of account for the purpose of Section 11(4A) of the Act did not arise. 5.3 The Learned Senior Counsel relied upon

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme and Shri Jayant Bhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in subclause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\n9\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao