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 42clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,904Mumbai1,724Bangalore698Karnataka602Chennai402Jaipur299Hyderabad273Ahmedabad258Kolkata220Chandigarh163Surat115Telangana112Indore103Pune98Cochin85Raipur70Amritsar68Rajkot64Visakhapatnam60Calcutta59Nagpur52Lucknow42SC39Cuttack35Agra27Guwahati24Patna22Jodhpur8Allahabad8Rajasthan8Orissa7Kerala7Jabalpur5Varanasi5Panaji2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 43(5)2Section 362Section 432Section 2632Section 402Section 194A(3)(iv)2

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

42(1) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 28/12/2017 the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 28/12/2017 interalia interalia making an disallowance of Rs.2,41,079/ disallowance of Rs.2,41,079/- u/s 14A of the Act being income from business

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