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.

6 results for “house property”+ Section 13(1)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,734Delhi2,738Bangalore1,286Chennai906Karnataka706Kolkata465Jaipur395Ahmedabad363Hyderabad304Surat242Chandigarh211Pune192Indore170Telangana139Cochin122Rajkot88Raipur84Lucknow78Nagpur77Visakhapatnam77SC67Amritsar62Cuttack59Calcutta58Agra47Patna36Guwahati28Varanasi18Rajasthan16Jodhpur14Allahabad14Kerala13Dehradun11Orissa7Panaji6Jabalpur4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Ranchi3Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1J&K1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 15514Section 143(1)9Section 143(3)9Section 1546Section 5A4Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 2633Section 403Addition to Income3

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 337/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh D.E. Robinson, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43(5)

e) of proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act as the loss incurred on Stock Exchange which was not recognized at the time of entering into the transactions. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that the investigation into the matter as brought out by the A.O. is still pending and hence, the amount cannot be claimed

Deduction3
Disallowance3
Rectification u/s 1542

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

property 7 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2015 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified by the ld. AO during the at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified by the ld. AO during the at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 64/PAN/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

E. Robinson vehemently argued that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the non-issuance of any notice during the rectification A.Ys.2007-08 & 2009-10 proceedings and having acknowledging the order passed u/s. 155 of the Act is not valid, confirmed the order of AO which is not at all justified. 7. Further, he argued that the AO added

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 65/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

E. Robinson vehemently argued that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the non-issuance of any notice during the rectification A.Ys.2007-08 & 2009-10 proceedings and having acknowledging the order passed u/s. 155 of the Act is not valid, confirmed the order of AO which is not at all justified. 7. Further, he argued that the AO added

BELGAUM COAL & COKE CONSUMER CO-OP ASSOCIATION LTD,BELGAUM vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 102/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 102/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Co-Operative Association Ltd. Khanapur Road, Udyambag, Belgaum-590 008. Pan : Aaaat4615M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Belagavi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Halbhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

ITA 114/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

For Appellant: Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

e-filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 23/09/2010 declaring therein total income of ₹18,92,20,060/-. The said return in first instance without variation was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, by service of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering