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.

17 results for “house property”+ Section 133(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai669Delhi666Karnataka487Bangalore292Jaipur135Ahmedabad112Kolkata95Chennai84Indore83Cochin68Pune67Hyderabad62Chandigarh52Calcutta51Raipur49Telangana45Lucknow36Surat30Cuttack24Guwahati20Patna19Nagpur17Agra15Amritsar13SC10Visakhapatnam9Varanasi6Dehradun5Jodhpur5Rajasthan5Rajkot4Orissa3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)26Section 153A21Section 4018Section 80I18Section 14713Section 26310Section 689Deduction9Disallowance9Addition to Income

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

ITA 183/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Banthia CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 133A(3)(ia)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

133 was carried out at the business premises of the firm, no evidence has been produced or brought on record by AO to show that any search 8 ITA183/NAG/2017 NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY VS ACIT , C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR action u/s 132 was caried out against the appellant firm.The issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee

8
Section 69A6
Exemption4

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

d) Amount of loan repaid during the year:- Your kindness may kindly appreciate that most of the loans were repaid during the year. This fact can be verified from the confirmation ledgers attached herewith as Annexure 1. To highlight the factum that the loans were duly repaid through the banking channel, the assessee had also submitted the bank statements before

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 46/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The Revenue has filed appeals for the assessment year 2007–08 and 2009–10, which arose out of the impugned orders of even date 21/06/2016, and the assessee has also filed its appeal for the assessment year 2003–04, M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. which arose out of the impugned order dated

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The Revenue has filed appeals for the assessment year 2007–08 and 2009–10, which arose out of the impugned orders of even date 21/06/2016, and the assessee has also filed its appeal for the assessment year 2003–04, M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. which arose out of the impugned order dated

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The Revenue has filed appeals for the assessment year 2007–08 and 2009–10, which arose out of the impugned orders of even date 21/06/2016, and the assessee has also filed its appeal for the assessment year 2003–04, M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. which arose out of the impugned order dated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MAKARAND MADHUSUDAN JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 382/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 28/09/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 22/12/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [for short, “learned CIT(A)”]. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in sustaining addition

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. 7 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt

MADHUR LAXMAN GADIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

House no.426–B Ward no.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, PAN – AVZPG3725G v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee by :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue by :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing – 07/10/2025 Date of Order – 08/10/2025 O R D E R The assessee has filed appeal against the order dated 31/05/2024