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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 19(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,105Delhi3,062Bangalore1,106Karnataka741Chennai711Kolkata483Jaipur462Hyderabad402Ahmedabad366Chandigarh258Surat220Pune219Telangana173Indore166Cochin111Amritsar111Raipur87Rajkot86Visakhapatnam79Lucknow78Nagpur68SC64Calcutta61Cuttack53Patna39Agra33Guwahati29Rajasthan24Jodhpur20Varanasi18Allahabad14Kerala10Jabalpur8Dehradun7Orissa7Ranchi4Panaji4Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 15514Section 143(1)8Section 143(3)6Section 1546Section 5A4Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 80P(2)(e)3Section 43(5)2Addition to Income2

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 (4

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 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

4 and 5 of the impugned order. 6. The ld. AR, Shri D. 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

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

4 and 5 of the impugned order. 6. The ld. AR, Shri D. 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

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