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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 80Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad19Bangalore13Delhi9Mumbai5Pune5Indore4Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1Kolkata1SC1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 10B7Section 80E5Section 143(3)4Deduction4Section 56(2)(viib)3Disallowance3Section 10A2Addition to Income2Exemption2

MANHARLAL H. PAREKH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejamanharlal H. Parekh (Huf), B-45, Sea Lord, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 Pan: Aabhm 9157R ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran
Section 138Section 143(3)Section 80ESection 80E(1)

house property. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee has not proved that there is any amount outstanding in the name of Shri Kishore Shah amounting to Rs.4.00 lacs and also not proved that the debt was incidental to business of the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of bad debt of Rs.4.00 lacs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

houses in India for residential purposes. In view thereof, the ld AR prayed that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act may be granted in re- spect of all the aforesaid three categories of receipts. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Refinery & Dis- tillery

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions". This rigidity about the price being for an actual transaction has, however, been considerably relaxed when we take into account the rule 10AB 34 M/s. Reliance Industries limited which allows hypothetical price of a transaction being taken into account as well. The scheme

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

houses), detailed explanation and factors considered to arrive at the discounting factor 15 percent. General Rejection of DCF 2. The Assessing officer has erred in rejecting the DCF method Method adopted by assessee as its beyond the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as mentioned in Paragraph 5 of Page 7 of Assessment order. Facts of the case: 1. The assessee filed