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.

67 results for “house property”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,987Delhi4,241Bangalore1,567Chennai1,205Ahmedabad840Jaipur838Karnataka819Kolkata786Hyderabad753Pune641Chandigarh449Surat335Indore322Cochin298Visakhapatnam288Telangana219Amritsar172Rajkot159Raipur138Lucknow114Cuttack113Nagpur112Agra79SC75Patna67Calcutta66Jodhpur59Guwahati47Allahabad37Dehradun32Varanasi25Rajasthan24Kerala20Ranchi15Jabalpur14Orissa9Panaji9Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 263112Section 153A78Section 143(3)60Addition to Income33Section 25030Limitation/Time-bar21Section 142(1)20Section 14720Section 14819

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

house property income. The ld. Pr. CIT was of the opinion that this issue has not been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 5 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Prabhat Kumar 5. We have perused the assessment order, which is totally silent on this aspect. The ld. Assessing Officer has not devoted a single line towards this

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 67/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

Section 14415
Natural Justice15
Condonation of Delay14
ITAT Patna
25 Jul 2024
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 70/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 68/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 69/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

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

8 with the words "the whole assessment order was based on misappreciation of fact and total confusion of the learned Assessing Officer which can be seen from the following chart". 6.1.2 It is contended that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for clerical mistake of the section under which this exemption is claimed, whether it is section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
Section 143(2)

house property. Further, estimated the income of the assessee applying net profit of 8% on the gross contract receipts of Rs. 2,39,81,246/- which works out to be Rs. 19,18,500/-. The ld. AO therefore assessed the income of the assessee to Rs. 2,07,82,680/- is against declared total income

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

8. Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the transfer of 55% of the Land in favour of the Developer

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer has not at all given opportunity to explain this fact and passed the assessment order. The ld. 5 Renu Devi Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in a mechanical manner confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. On the other hand

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

8. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Section 124(1) of the Act describes the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers 124.1[(1) Where by virtue of any directions or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

8. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Section 124(1) of the Act describes the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers 124.1[(1) Where by virtue of any directions or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

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

ITA 42/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

8. For that the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs 15,45,000/- made by the AO on account of assumed deposits in bank under section 69A, on wrong facts of the case, as she is deriving income from various sources of income as accepted by AO and has sufficient assets since 2008 to justify

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

house property and income from other source, namely interest etc. As observed above, the ld. Assessing Officer has examined all these details and thereafter finalized the assessment. 4. The ld. Pr. Commissioner on perusal of the assessment record formed an opinion that assessment order is suffering from an apparent error and, therefore, it has caused a prejudice to the interest

CHHAYA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 437/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 437/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Chhaya Devi,………….…………………….………Appellant New Area Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aakpd7640M] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)…………………………………………….....Respondent New Delhi Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

house property, business and other sources and claimed deduction under section 10AA of the I.T. Act. A series of notices under section 142(1) totaling eight in numbers, were issued along with questionnaire which were complied from time to time. The appellant alsosought hearing through video conference which was conducted on 26.08.2021. Certain queries were made during video conferencing, which

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 336/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250

house property. The total income was assessed at ₹ 3,16,98,714/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who considered the facts of the case and noted that despite issuing four notices for hearing, no reply was filed, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 6. Aggrieved

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

ITA 268/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 96

8. For that the grounds taken herein above is not prejudicial to each other. 9. For that any other grounds may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹5,88,940/- which was selected for scrutiny

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

House-Con Construction & Developer during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14. On perusal of the land development agreement entered into by the assessee on 14/08/2012, it was noted that the assessee and the developer have agreed to the development agreement where full share of 49% of the total land area of 4355.20 Sq.ft owned

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 573/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to submit details of agriculture income, bank account statement, income from milk and bio-products etc. along with documentary evidences. The assessee furnished the copy

SRI KALIKA NANDAN NIJI KULDEVTA TRUST,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), PATNA

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

ITA 4/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 164

house property, Rs.16,727/- as income from other sources (interest and donation received) and net agricultural income of Rs.56,000/- equal to aggregate income of Rs.1,10,530/-, on which no tax was payable as the threshold limit was Rs. 2 lacs. According to the Ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Rastogi, the Ld. CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), NAGPUR vs. KHARE AND TARKUNDE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. Luthra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Housing Development Corporation vs. Bibijan Shaikh Farid & Ors. 2007 (3) MHLJ 402 (Bom. HC) 4 ii) Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Charity Commissioner in WP No. 4543/2010, dt 23.06.2011 (Bombay HC at Nagpur) iii) Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 223 (Bom. HC) iv) Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO [2011] 45 SOT 257 (Mumbai) v) ACIT