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.

110 results for “house property”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,161Mumbai1,068Karnataka560Bangalore447Jaipur295Ahmedabad239Chennai234Hyderabad177Chandigarh163Kolkata163Pune110Cochin105Indore96Visakhapatnam67Rajkot63Telangana60Calcutta56Raipur52Lucknow39Surat39Amritsar32Guwahati29Nagpur24Agra23Cuttack21SC18Jodhpur11Rajasthan5Patna4Varanasi3Orissa3Dehradun2Ranchi2Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 153A63Section 143(3)58Section 6840House Property36Section 14835Section 80I35Section 13232Disallowance30Deduction

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

house property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

30
Section 143(2)29
Section 14A27

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 34/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24

house property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized by the assessee from the Hotel Building. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the assessee by changing the head of income from ‘Income from House Property' to ‘Income from Business' as shown by the assessee in respect of rental

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized by the assessee from the Hotel Building. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the assessee by changing the head of income from ‘Income from House Property' to ‘Income from Business' as shown by the assessee in respect of rental

SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 234/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.234/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., S.V. Phadnis C.A. / Sushant S. Phadnis, 613 E Ward, Phadnis Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur – 416001 Pan: Aaats5436L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 22

section 22 under the head „Income from house property‟ is deemed income of the assessee from the property owned by him as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT 243 ITR 89

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7, PUNE, PUNE vs. ASHOKKUMAR SOBHAGMAL, PATNI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 420/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 567/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 423/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 569/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 421/PUN/2020[2017-20189]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

ARIHANT PATNI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 442/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 568/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI , PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 419/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 ,PUNE, PUNE vs. AMITKUMAR GAJENDRAKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 418/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. VASUNDHARA APPORVA PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 422/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

89,65,775/- towards cost of construction. The sale value of the property is Rs. 3i00,00,000/-. The property (building) was given on rent to various schools from 01.06.2008. The assessee has shown income from business in return of income. The AO sought to invoked provisions of section 50 & 50C. The AO observed that the school building was constructed

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 473/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

house property without any incriminating evidence is bad in law and the same may kindly be deleted. 5] Ground Nos. 5 - 5.1 : Addition of Rs.19,200/- 5.1] This issue is discussed by the A.O. in para 3 of the asst. order. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.19,200/- in his return filed prior to search. The learned

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 472/PUN/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

house property without any incriminating evidence is bad in law and the same may kindly be deleted. 5] Ground Nos. 5 - 5.1 : Addition of Rs.19,200/- 5.1] This issue is discussed by the A.O. in para 3 of the asst. order. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.19,200/- in his return filed prior to search. The learned

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 474/PUN/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

house property without any incriminating evidence is bad in law and the same may kindly be deleted. 5] Ground Nos. 5 - 5.1 : Addition of Rs.19,200/- 5.1] This issue is discussed by the A.O. in para 3 of the asst. order. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.19,200/- in his return filed prior to search. The learned