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.

93 results for “house property”+ Section 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi813Mumbai721Karnataka494Bangalore299Jaipur157Ahmedabad127Kolkata102Pune93Hyderabad89Chennai85Indore84Chandigarh73Cochin68Raipur51Calcutta51Telangana50Surat39Lucknow36Patna25Cuttack24Guwahati20Agra20Amritsar18Nagpur17SC10Visakhapatnam9Varanasi6Dehradun6Jodhpur6Rajkot5Rajasthan5Ranchi4Orissa3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14867Section 143(3)63Section 80I56Addition to Income54Section 143(2)50Section 14745Section 6839Section 13233Section 271(1)(c)30

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Housing Society Ltd. which was executed for the consideration of Rs.7,25,00,000/- as sale to Shri Ramesh Shreehari Kondhare, Smt. Manda Ramesh Kondhare and Shri Girish Ramesh Kondhare. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.2,26,33,135/- u/s 54 of the Act and also claimed improvement cost of Rs.30

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

Deduction25
Reopening of Assessment21
Disallowance18

M/S. GREAT FORTUNE INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2325/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

house property as deemed rent under section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” ITA No.2325/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (A) Based on the Inspector’s Report the AO decided the deemed rent of the impugned properties and made addition to the total income. The Assessee filed appeal before

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 54FSection 55A

house properties. He accordingly worked out the long term capital gain at Rs.69,47,370/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by holding as under : Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant challenged the “4.1 reference to the District Valuation Officer by the AO on the ground

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1424/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1425/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 329/PUN/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153A

house property, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had considered additional evidences and upheld the addition earlier made. The CIT(A) also held that the assessment order passed was not barred by limitation. 12. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 13. The Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the Authorities below

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2740/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2738/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2741/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2742/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2743/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2739/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A.M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

133 of the Act was carried out at ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 5 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors the business outlets of assessee and partnership firms in which assessee and her husband were associated as partners. In response to notice issued under section 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

133 of the Act was carried out at ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 5 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors the business outlets of assessee and partnership firms in which assessee and her husband were associated as partners. In response to notice issued under section 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

133 of the Act was carried out at ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 5 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors the business outlets of assessee and partnership firms in which assessee and her husband were associated as partners. In response to notice issued under section 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

133 of the Act was carried out at ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 5 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors the business outlets of assessee and partnership firms in which assessee and her husband were associated as partners. In response to notice issued under section 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income