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.

21 results for “house property”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka475Delhi398Mumbai320Bangalore212Jaipur81Hyderabad68Chennai57Ahmedabad54Calcutta50Chandigarh44Cochin40Raipur38Kolkata36Lucknow33Amritsar30Indore22Guwahati21Pune21Patna17Telangana17Surat16Nagpur16Rajkot15Cuttack11SC8Visakhapatnam6Kerala5Allahabad5Varanasi4Rajasthan4Dehradun3Jodhpur2Ranchi1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 54B13Section 201(1)12Section 13211Addition to Income11Section 143(3)9Section 153A8Section 1958Section 143(2)6Section 1486Double Taxation/DTAA

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)

section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain; iii) the asset has been transferred by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family; iv) the assessee has purchased one residential house in India within one year before

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

5
Deduction4
Business Income4

MAHANAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahanagar Constructions, S.No.129, H.No.1/2, Hari Ganga, Near Rto Office, Yerwada, Pune-411006. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aajfm8909K बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 12.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 11,59,200/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investments. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted. 2) Without Prejudice To Ground Of Appeal No. 1, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

section 5(1), I hold that there is no rationale in charging it to tax. I, therefore, overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs.34.35 lakh.” 7. Further, we perused the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Becharay Rathi (supra), where the undersigned is authored of the said order, and find para

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 231/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Shri Neelesh Khandelwal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. During

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 32Section 80I

section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Shri Neelesh Khandelwal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. During

BHIMA DADA KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

House Property, whereas the assessee has relied on the following judgments: i) Laxmi Narayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 334 ( Rajasthan) ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 170 taxman 160 ( Punjab & Haryana) iii) Jagpal Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 186 Taxman 26 ( Delhi) (Mag.) The aforesaid judgments exclusively deals with the exemption u/s.54B

BALU VITTHAL KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1596/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

House Property, whereas the assessee has relied on the following judgments: i) Laxmi Narayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 334 ( Rajasthan) ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 170 taxman 160 ( Punjab & Haryana) iii) Jagpal Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 186 Taxman 26 ( Delhi) (Mag.) The aforesaid judgments exclusively deals with the exemption u/s.54B

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

192 (SC), had held that the construction that is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. In the present case, the assessee is relying on the judgment of Jainam Investment vs. ACIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai (2021) 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bombay) (Refer para 15 on page no. 3-12) 29. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 876/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

property has been executed and second is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be seen from the other documents seized during the search. 5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales Manager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on money by the Assessee Firm

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

ITA 875/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

192 + 32,07,662], respectively made in the hands of the appellant is also upheld. The ground No. 1of appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 13. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 877/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

property has been executed and second is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be seen from the other documents seized during the search. 5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales Manager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on money by the Assessee Firm

NAGNATH HANMANTAPPA JALKOTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/PUN/2015[BP]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2018

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 158B

property only in the year 2001 and therefore, the question of assessee incurring this expenditure prior to 2001 did not arise. There is no paper found during the search indicating that the assessee has incurred the expenditure from 1997 to 2001 and on the other hand, Shri Andure has owned up the paper and has also clarified that the paper

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54BSection 54F

house within a period of one year before the date of transfer or within a period of 2 years after the date of transfer. The assessee has purchased a flat at Bhugaon dated 01.12.2015 vide registration No.4566/2015 for a consideration of Rs.12,72,200/- within 1 year before the date of transfer of agricultural land. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that

SANDVIK MACHINING SOLUTION AB, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) SANDVIK TOLLING SEVERIGE AB),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

house developed production systems such as GSS and related applications. Apart from the aforesaid receipts, assessee had also received licence fee, and technical fee which were offered to tax at 10% including receipts of exports and raw-materials. The assessee was thereafter asked to show cause as to why the total receipts should not be considered as taxable income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

192 (SC), had held that the construction that is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. In the present case, the adopted. 29 ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 assessee is relying on the judgment of Jainam Investment vs. ACIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai (2021) 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bombay) (Refer para 15 on page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 PAN : AAOFR7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date of hearing : 16.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune

VISTEON ENGINEERING CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 316/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ms. Nupoor ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)

192 (Part), Sub Plot No. B, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri Waghere, Pune-411018 PAN : AACCT2585N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Visteon Engineering Center (India) Private Limited