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.

51 results for “house property”+ Section 9clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,339Delhi2,084Bangalore795Chennai484Jaipur461Hyderabad424Ahmedabad313Pune275Chandigarh257Kolkata230Indore182Cochin141Surat100Rajkot97Raipur96Visakhapatnam95Amritsar80SC79Nagpur74Lucknow60Agra51Patna51Jodhpur38Cuttack37Guwahati33Allahabad17Dehradun15Varanasi12Jabalpur10Panaji6Ranchi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 263100Section 153A66Section 143(3)45Section 25025Addition to Income21Limitation/Time-bar17Section 14814Section 12714Section 14713

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. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 70/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

Section 142(1)12
Natural Justice10
Condonation of Delay10
25 Jul 2024
AY 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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that warrant of authorization for requisition under section 132A (copy was provided to the Ld. CIT(A) by the A.O. along with the remand report) was also in the name of the assessee and therefore provisions of section 153A applies and not section 153C. 10. That the order

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: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that warrant of authorization for requisition under section 132A (copy was provided to the Ld. CIT(A) by the A.O. along with the remand report) was also in the name of the assessee and therefore provisions of section 153A applies and not section 153C. 10. That the order

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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that warrant of authorization for requisition under section 132A (copy was provided to the Ld. CIT(A) by the A.O. along with the remand report) was also in the name of the assessee and therefore provisions of section 153A applies and not section 153C. 10. That the order

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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that warrant of authorization for requisition under section 132A (copy was provided to the Ld. CIT(A) by the A.O. along with the remand report) was also in the name of the assessee and therefore provisions of section 153A applies and not section 153C. 10. That the order

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

house; therefore, the provisions of section 54F would be applicable if the assessee I.T.A. No.: 715/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Seema Srivastava. fulfils the other applicable conditions in section 54F. Thereafter, the AO has reproduced the parts of the section 54F which mention the conditions i.e. clause a and b. In concluding para of the order i.e. para 9

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)

section 23(3)" That the same view has been expressed by the various court which are as follows:-Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati). The A.R has further relied upon the judgment of Hon. ITAT, Patna bench, in the case of assessee itself

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

9. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the lower authorities failed to appreciate the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj be applicable as actual transfer of property as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

9. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the lower authorities failed to appreciate the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj be applicable as actual transfer of property as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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)

House property as per provisions of the joint Land Development agreement. 14. Without prejudice to the above, even if for argument sake, the date of execution and/or registration of the agreement is treated as the date of transfer even then the learned Assessing Officer erred in the manner of computing of the capital gains which is not in the mode

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

9. For that the CIT (A) erred in rejecting the statement of cash flow without any justification and on surmises and conjectures as the same was supported with the house property income, bank, postal savings accounts and the receipts from her business income from year to year. 10. For that the Id. CIT (A), NFC has erred in not considering

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

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

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

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 under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') as the assessee had claimed large

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

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