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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 19clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,072Delhi3,055Bangalore1,064Karnataka741Chennai695Jaipur586Ahmedabad542Hyderabad491Kolkata472Pune348Chandigarh312Indore256Surat235Visakhapatnam205Cochin195Telangana173Amritsar142Raipur102Rajkot96Lucknow88Nagpur74Cuttack73SC64Calcutta61Agra44Patna39Jodhpur34Guwahati31Rajasthan24Varanasi18Allahabad15Kerala10Ranchi9Dehradun9Jabalpur8Orissa7Panaji5Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 15514Section 143(1)8Section 143(3)6Section 1546Section 5A4Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 80P(2)(e)3Addition to Income3Section 271(1)(c)

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

19 and contended that reopening is bad under law. I note that the AO provided the copy of reasons recorded to the assessee vide letter dated 15-03-2013 which is evident from page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee also filed objections to the reasons recorded for which no dispute raised for non-passing of speaking order

2
Rectification 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

19 and contended that reopening is bad under law. I note that the AO provided the copy of reasons recorded to the assessee vide letter dated 15-03-2013 which is evident from page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee also filed objections to the reasons recorded for which no dispute raised for non-passing of speaking order

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)

19) “Co-operative society” means a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any state for the registration of co-operative societies;” We are of the considered view, that though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection

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)

house was not able to clear our dues. The outstanding of Rs.4.8 crores against the broker’s name in effect represented the value of sales/closing stock as of the cut-off date due to the abrupt closure of trading on NSEL for no fault of the assessee. Let alone any connivance, the assessee did not even have any hint

DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP ,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 272/PAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Y. V. Raviraj
Section 271(1)(c)

House, Campal, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Panjai, Goa Patto, Panaji, Goa PAN/GIR No. AABFD 2012 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri M. C. Maniwadekar Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Y. V. Raviraj Date of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2018 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned