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.

9 results for “house property”+ Section 313clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka457Mumbai361Delhi229Bangalore169Ahmedabad74Kolkata67Jaipur42Chennai39Calcutta38Hyderabad28Pune27Chandigarh26Telangana18Nagpur17Surat12Indore11Patna9Cuttack7Visakhapatnam7Raipur6SC3Cochin3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Agra2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 26358Section 153A56Section 143(3)15Section 12714Limitation/Time-bar9Revision u/s 2637Section 1472Section 133(6)2Condonation of Delay

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263

313 days. After taking into consideration the explanation given by the partner of the assessee-company and objection raised by the ld. D.R., we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Government Civil Contractor & Sub-contractor

2

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

House Exhibition Road, Patna PAN/GIR No.AACCM 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Patna dated

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

313 ITR 65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct