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.

10 results for “house property”+ Section 64clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi847Mumbai778Bangalore281Jaipur192Hyderabad130Ahmedabad129Chennai123Chandigarh113Cochin79Kolkata64Indore61Pune60Raipur58Rajkot40SC27Guwahati22Nagpur20Lucknow16Cuttack16Surat16Visakhapatnam11Patna10Amritsar8Jodhpur8Agra7Varanasi3Jabalpur3Allahabad2Dehradun1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income9Section 54F8Section 143(3)7Section 2505Section 235Section 1483Section 50C3Section 54B2Section 234A2Disallowance

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

64,02,144/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO assessed the total income u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making an addition under the head capital gains of Rs.64,02,144/- as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

property as per Rol amounting to Rs. 14.42 lakhs vis-a-vis Rs. 12,36,730/- without appreciating the fact that the claim of Rs.12.36 lakhs as per circle rate of F.Y.2001-02 issued by Govt. of Bihar. 10. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has denying deduction u/s 54F and 54B amounting to Rs.2,89,07,000/- (Rs.1.58 crore

YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-6, , PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.06/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yogendra Prasad Sharma………………………………………..………….……Appellant 0 Matukdhari Niwas, West Boring Canal Road Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sagar Warsi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,32,280/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

section 143(3) (Attachment No.1). In the said order, it was alleged for imposition of tax payment of s.12,26,547/. Facts of the Case: 1. I, Yogendra Prasad Sharma, with all my brothers together, we hold 71 Bigha Agricultural Land. These lands are having healthy 2 crop season for many years. For this purpose, we have submitted: a. Family

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

64,009/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed return of income in response thereto on 27.04.2019 which was found to be invalid due to some reasons however no defective notice u/s 139(9) was issued before treating the return

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 96/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

64,009/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed return of income in response thereto on 27.04.2019 which was found to be invalid due to some reasons however no defective notice u/s 139(9) was issued before treating the return

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 98/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

64,009/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed return of income in response thereto on 27.04.2019 which was found to be invalid due to some reasons however no defective notice u/s 139(9) was issued before treating the return

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 94/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

64,009/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed return of income in response thereto on 27.04.2019 which was found to be invalid due to some reasons however no defective notice u/s 139(9) was issued before treating the return

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

64,009/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee has filed return of income in response thereto on 27.04.2019 which was found to be invalid due to some reasons however no defective notice u/s 139(9) was issued before treating the return

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

64,000/- in her return for A.Y. 2011-12 from letting of 2W, The Millennium, whereas the said property was purchased through the loan which taken jointly with appellant. In the remand report the AO has also confirmed that the Millennium is a joint property of Shri Ravi Loachan Singh and his wife. Hence, the appellant's contention that

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

64. Since in the instant case the A.O. after considering the various submissions made by the assessee from time to time and has taken a possible view, therefore, merely because the DIT does not agree with the opinion of the A.O., he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 to substitute his own opinion. It has further been held