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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 164clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka462Delhi394Mumbai347Surat136Bangalore114Chandigarh83Jaipur78Chennai70Ahmedabad55Lucknow42Raipur36Kolkata35Telangana32Cochin28Pune24Hyderabad23Indore20Calcutta17Visakhapatnam16Patna8Nagpur6SC5Rajasthan5Allahabad4Orissa3Rajkot3Agra3Jodhpur2Dehradun2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 15514Section 143(1)8Section 1546Section 5A4Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2Rectification u/s 1542

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

164/- was equally divided between the assessee and spouse as they are governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. He argued that there was no mistake apparent in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act passed in the case of assessee to rectify the same and it is only the AO made addition being 50% of share in the hands

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

164/- was equally divided between the assessee and spouse as they are governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. He argued that there was no mistake apparent in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act passed in the case of assessee to rectify the same and it is only the AO made addition being 50% of share in the hands