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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 253(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai442Karnataka437Delhi434Bangalore93Jaipur69Ahmedabad62Chennai50Chandigarh46Kolkata35Hyderabad33Indore31Telangana24Cuttack17Calcutta17Lucknow17Pune17Amritsar15Rajkot14Cochin10SC9Guwahati7Allahabad7Jodhpur6Surat5Rajasthan3Patna2Nagpur2Raipur2Agra2Varanasi1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 143(3)4Section 1472Section 1322Section 682Section 54F2Deduction2Addition to Income2

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3),, RAIPUR vs. SMT. RACHNA DEVI SADHWANI L/H OF LATE SHRI KALYAN DAS SADHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

ITA 15/BIL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(2)Section 54FSection 68

253(2) vide order dt 27/01/2012 as under; “1. Whether in law and on facts & circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,45,804/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 19661 by rejecting the Long Term Capital Gain claim of the assessee” “2. The order

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Property Invest.(P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 51 taxman. Com 387 (SC), and even Gujrat High Court in case of Umesh Krishnani Vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxman 598 (Gujarat). Earlier, in the case of CIT v Mohanakala(P)(2007)161Taxman 169/291 ITR 278 (SC), while considering the scope of section 68, appex court observed as under