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.

9 results for “house property”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,920Delhi3,599Bangalore1,337Chennai888Karnataka782Kolkata595Jaipur528Hyderabad485Ahmedabad420Pune303Chandigarh298Surat270Telangana203Indore175Cochin129Amritsar116Rajkot105Raipur101Visakhapatnam91Lucknow86Nagpur80SC68Calcutta61Cuttack59Agra48Patna41Guwahati31Jodhpur25Rajasthan24Varanasi20Dehradun18Allahabad14Kerala13Orissa9Panaji9Jabalpur5Ranchi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1257Section 19(4)2Addition to Income2

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

13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The name of appellant Shyamal Chakravarty did not find place in charge-sheet No. 12/2013 dated 31.08.2013 (in FIR No. RC-01(A)/2011-R dated 03.01.2011) filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. Whereas the name of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra

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

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA/7/2023
HC Orissa
02 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

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

8. Copy of birth certificate of the daughter of Ajay Sethi DW-3 9. Copy of health card of the daughter of Ajay DW-3 Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:09.01.2026 16:51:13 Signature Not Verified RFA (OS) 05/2017 and connected matters Page 21 of 43 Sethi 10. Copy of Ration Card of Ajay Sethi

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

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

8. The facts in all the cases are that petitioners are wife of respondents respectively. The relationship - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019 between the parties as wife and husband is not disputed. On certain allegations made against the respondents, the petitioners have left matrimonial

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

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

ITA/22/2019HC Orissa31 Jan 2023

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

Section 125

properties of the Opposite Party No.2 as she had simply filed the salary slip of the Opposite Party No.2. It has also been noticed that the Opposite Party No.2 was paying Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner by order of this court in miscellaneous case. Thus, in ultimate analysis, the Family Court has granted Rs. 10,000/- per month

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

8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 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

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

8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 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