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.

8 results for “house property”+ Section 11(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,256Delhi2,880Bangalore1,116Karnataka685Chennai670Jaipur646Ahmedabad590Kolkata547Hyderabad375Pune361Chandigarh315Surat246Indore217Cochin206Telangana169Visakhapatnam127Amritsar125Rajkot104Raipur92Lucknow88Cuttack70SC69Nagpur68Calcutta60Jodhpur36Agra33Patna32Guwahati26Dehradun19Allahabad18Varanasi18Rajasthan17Kerala14Orissa8Ranchi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Panaji4Punjab & Haryana3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1J&K1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 1256Section 19(4)2Addition to Income2

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

ITA/96/2022HC Orissa17 Aug 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ITA/9/2024HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel
Section 164Section 42

c), 13(1(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Charge-sheet No. 06/2011 dated 05.09.2011 of Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, AHD, Ranchi filed before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 477A of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,BHUBANESWAR vs. BOUDH CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,BOUDH

ITA/104/2018HC Orissa06 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Rev.Pet Family Court No. 104 Of 2018 C/W Rev.Pet Family Court No. 134 Of 2017 Rev.Pet Family Court No. 131 Of 2019

Section 125Section 19Section 19(4)Section 9

C. MIS. NO. 133/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR. PC., FOR MAINTENANCE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. GAUYA SANTARE

In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed

ITA/2/2018HC Orissa23 Dec 2019

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 13.11.2025 Pronounced On : 12.02.2026 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Vadamalai A.S(Md)No.2 Of 2018 K.V.R.Kannan, S/O.K.V.Raju Thevar, 1, Raj Bhavan, K.V.R.Garden, Via Samayalkudi Mariamman Koil, Theni Main Road, Madurai – 625 016. ...Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. G.Ramachandran (Died) Saradha, W/O.Muthuraman, Back Side To K.V.R.Garden, Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. ...Respondent/Defendant

For Respondent: Mr.V..Ramakrishnan
Section 96

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5.The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties. (1)Whether the plaintiff could not mobilize funds and not taking any steps to purchase the property as per the agreement, dated 09.03.2006? (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

ITA/5/2012HC Orissa10 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

ITA/40/2007HC Orissa07 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ITA/10/2017HC Orissa04 Dec 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

11. Copy of I-card of the daughter of Ajay Sethi DW-3 12. Copy certifying that daughter of Mr. Ajay Sethi is a bonafide student of Delhi Public School. DW-3 13. Copy of summons for producing the admission documents of son and daughter of Mr. Ajay Sethi DW-3 Defendant Witness No.-5 Exhibit No. Description Proved by/Attested

PRINCIPAL COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. BINAY KUMAR JINDAL, HUF

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA/7/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 174Section 189

House of Lords in the case of Anisminic Ltd, v. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported at 1969(1) ER 208 and the 6 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros, reported at (1971) 1 SCC 486 (para 21). 6. The second point urged by learned counsel for the appellants