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 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,393Mumbai1,076Karnataka545Bangalore474Ahmedabad313Jaipur270Chennai237Hyderabad231Surat167Kolkata149Chandigarh134Indore123Cochin122Pune100Telangana81Raipur68Visakhapatnam61Calcutta55Rajkot47Lucknow41Nagpur34Agra24SC22Amritsar21Cuttack21Guwahati8Jodhpur8Rajasthan5Ranchi4Jabalpur4Dehradun4Patna4Allahabad4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1Panaji1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 54F4Section 1443Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2Section 1472Section 133(6)2

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 715/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

77,235/- from sale of immovable property during the year under consideration and had claimed deduction u/s 48 of the Act in respect of cost of acquisition with indexation of Rs. 29,42,852/-. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- u/s 54 of the Act and had shown ‘NIL’ income from long term capital

Capital Gains2
Natural Justice2
Limitation/Time-bar2

VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

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

ITA 558/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
Section 10(37)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

77,63,000/- was sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. However, the Ld. AO noticed that no capital gains was disclosed on such sale. Thereafter, the Ld. AO assessed long term capital gain at Rs. 1,53,27,967/-. 1.2 Aggrieved with this order, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), who has disposed of the appeal

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

77,614/-. The Liability for Goods & Services is 39% of expenses for consumption of raw materials and Liability for Sub-Contract is 76% of sub-contract charges which is unusual. x x x x x x x x x x x x …………… Detail of Sundry Creditors above Rs.5,00,000/- (Sr. No.1

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