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 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,707Delhi1,672Bangalore690Karnataka599Chennai343Jaipur299Kolkata258Ahmedabad229Hyderabad204Chandigarh182Surat163Pune111Cochin96Indore87Telangana75Raipur62Amritsar61Calcutta53Rajkot45Lucknow45Nagpur38SC27Cuttack25Visakhapatnam24Guwahati23Agra18Varanasi13Rajasthan10Jodhpur8Kerala6Orissa5Dehradun4Allahabad3Patna3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2Himachal Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 80P(2)(d)4Section 80P(2)(e)3Section 43(5)2Section 362Section 432

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)

80,035/-; and (ii). Belgaum District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. : Rs. 3,012/-, i.e co-operative Banks, would not be eligible for deduction u/s. 6 Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Co-operative Association Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.102 /PAN/2018 80P(2)(d) cannot be sustained. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the claim of assessee. 5. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, from the assessment order we observed that before the A.O. the assessee filed written submissions dated 14.12.2016, which reads as follows : 7 ITA.No.337/PAN./2018 Beiersdorf