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.

41 results for “house property”+ Section 140clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi591Karnataka464Mumbai421Bangalore191Jaipur112Chandigarh105Ahmedabad95Chennai88Hyderabad88Cochin80Kolkata56Calcutta53Indore50Raipur46Lucknow42Pune41Telangana41Cuttack27Nagpur21Rajkot18Visakhapatnam16Amritsar12SC9Surat7Rajasthan6Jodhpur5Agra5Guwahati5Patna5Varanasi4Orissa3Allahabad3Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)37Addition to Income28Section 80I25Section 13225Search & Seizure20Section 43(5)12Disallowance12Section 14711Section 14A11

ATUL CHANDRAKANT KIRLOSKAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 3093/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R S Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3093/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Chandrakant Kirloskar, The Deputy Commissioner 453, Radha, Gokhale Road, Model Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-14, Colony, Pune – 411 016. Pune – 411037. Pan: Abipk 5776 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch. Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune Dated 16.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

Section 23(1)(b)

House Property was worked out making of addition of Rs.16,89,243/- to the total income. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee took up the matter before the ld.CIT(A) and placed detailed written submissions. The assessee contended that the earlier ALV of Rs.22 lakhs cannot be Fair Rental Value as the tenant at that time was a Corporate Entity

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Section 36(1)(iii)10
Section 132(4)10
Reopening of Assessment10

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

ITA 607/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

140/- comprising of addition of Rs.12,890/- income as per ITR and Rs.2,59,24,250/- addition on account of long term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs.2,59,24,250/- as long term capital gain arising in the hands of the assessee in the relevant

M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/PUN/2016[BP: 1987-88 to 1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Avadhesh Kumar and Pankaj Garg
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140ASection 158B

140/- and he imposed penalty of ₹ 9,47,484/-. 6 National Tempo House 6. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Kandoi Bhogilal Mulchand Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 271 (Guj). 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

ITA 979/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 2Section 48Section 54Section 54F

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the investment in the property purchased from spouse. That, accordingly, there could not be any reason to deny the Appellant's claim for exemption u/s 54F. In view of the aforesaid logic, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made pertaining to disallowance of claim

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2966/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

house property being rental income. The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has derived income from business and profession as the assessee is primarily engaged in the profession of providing technical consultancy and manufacturing of plastic fittings in the name and style of M/s. Garuda Plant Products Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had made

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1539/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

house property being rental income. The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has derived income from business and profession as the assessee is primarily engaged in the profession of providing technical consultancy and manufacturing of plastic fittings in the name and style of M/s. Garuda Plant Products Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had made

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 958/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 989/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 798/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Nikhil Patakh &For Respondent: \nShri Arvind Desai
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89

house property\" of Rs.1,44,045/- and income from other\nsources of Rs.22,420/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,05,753/-\nunder various sections of Chapter-VIA and also claimed tax relief of\nRs.6,57,914/- u/s 89(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee submitted that the management of Pfizer\nHealthcare India Private

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 629/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

ITA 159/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

Properties (supra). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, Assessee had' claimed deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act for a Building 'E' which was constructed after the advent of Section 80IB (10) of the Act. Prior to that, buildings A to D were constructed before the advent of section 80IB

ROUNAK FARMS PVT. LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL) CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132Section 50CSection 69B

House, Tarabai Park, Dist.-Kolhapur-416003 PAN : AAECR8415R ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Circle, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

property to the DVO arises regular prices, therefore there was no occasion for Ld. CIT(A), to refer the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter of valuation of some of the flats/ shops should be referred to the DVO. Accordingly