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.

66 results for “house property”+ Section 13(3)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,014Delhi2,826Bangalore1,041Karnataka683Jaipur595Chennai594Ahmedabad520Kolkata482Hyderabad358Pune312Chandigarh295Surat237Indore207Cochin198Telangana170Amritsar121Visakhapatnam112Rajkot95Raipur89Lucknow82SC66Nagpur66Cuttack62Calcutta61Agra30Patna29Jodhpur29Guwahati27Dehradun19Rajasthan17Varanasi15Kerala13Allahabad12Ranchi8Orissa8Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2J&K1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153C89Section 143(3)73Section 153A69Addition to Income46Section 6834Section 13223Section 26322Section 80P(2)(a)22Section 14719

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

c. Approach road inside the scheme d. Water supply to the scheme e. Street Light It is respectfully submitted that the appellant cannot be said to be owner of residential property in respect of 11 & 12, Shree Venkatesh Krupa Enclave, Panjari, Nagpur unless it is fully ready and worth habitable. The fact that the sale Deeds were executed in favour

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

Deduction17
Disallowance17
Search & Seizure15

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

3) Share transfer fees 32,722.00 4) Other receipts a) Loan incidental charges 10,52,853.00 b) Loan consolidation charges 78,148.00 c) Inoperative Saving A/c charges 1,47,460.00 d) Working charges(flat transfer fee) 2,96,100.00 e) Loan commitment charges 9,08,448.00 24,83,010.00 _______________________________ Total Rs. 14,62,54,397.00 Profit attributable to these receipts

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

3) Share transfer fees 32,722.00 4) Other receipts a) Loan incidental charges 10,52,853.00 b) Loan consolidation charges 78,148.00 c) Inoperative Saving A/c charges 1,47,460.00 d) Working charges(flat transfer fee) 2,96,100.00 e) Loan commitment charges 9,08,448.00 24,83,010.00 _______________________________ Total Rs. 14,62,54,397.00 Profit attributable to these receipts

SHRI SUBUR KUMAR BANERJEE,,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. (OSD) O/O C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas
Section 24Section 24BSection 250

Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur erred in not accepting loan taken from bank as housing loan and not accepting interest paid to DCB bank amounting to Rs.1,12,37,579/-; Therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

ITA 89/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 68

house property was completed on 31/07/2008 i.e within three years of sale deed of property sold dt. 06/11/2007. 6. That apart from incorrect appreciation of fact regarding period of construction, there is no other objection/s raised with regards to deduction u/s 54 by the learned AO during assessment proceedings and remand proceedings as well as by learned CIT(A) during

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

c) Cost of improvement examined at Rs. 1,12,00,000/- was verifiable from the bank account and bills placed on record. i) P- 60-64 Bank Statement ii) P-85-105) Details of Expenses iii) P– 196 – 134 Bills & Vouchers F) It is evident that all the issues have been examined in detail and A.O. has taken possible view

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 436/NAG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 499/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 512/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. From the above reading of provisions of Section 273B, it is clear that the section

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 105/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition