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 16clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,482Delhi3,237Bangalore1,186Chennai786Karnataka757Jaipur645Ahmedabad598Hyderabad552Kolkata541Pune395Chandigarh331Surat259Indore259Visakhapatnam216Cochin210Telangana194Amritsar143Rajkot122Raipur108Lucknow96Cuttack85Nagpur85SC72Calcutta61Agra46Patna43Jodhpur38Guwahati36Allahabad28Rajasthan24Dehradun20Varanasi19Ranchi9Kerala9Orissa9Panaji7Jabalpur6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1257Section 19(4)2Addition to Income2

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 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

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

16:51:13 Signature Not Verified RFA (OS) 05/2017 and connected matters Page 32 of 43 is a member of Varun Co-op. House Building Society, whereas the Plaintiff has in his name only one property i.e. the Suit property, thereby rendering the plea of family settlement improbable. 18.9 Moreover, even prior to the setting up of M/s Tara Rubber

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

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in the learned Family Court for maintenance. 4. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared in the Family Court and opposed the application seeking maintenance. He alleged that the petitioner is of weak mind, indisciplined and selfish. He alleged that his wife was quarrelsome and assaulting him. The Opposite Party No.2 admitted

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

Housing Pvt. Ltd. by the purchaser Arun Kumar Agarwal as the proceeds of alleged crime of the appellant and other accused persons observing that said payment was made in the year 2006-07 by the present appellant Shyamal Chakravarty and Nand Lal HUF whereas the payment to the developer and owner of Arun Kumar Agarwal was made in the year

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

16 SCC 715, the Apex Court had occasion to observe how to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was observed as under: “6. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong

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

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires