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.

7 results for “house property”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,429Delhi1,740Bangalore837Chennai813Karnataka577Kolkata386Ahmedabad289Jaipur273Hyderabad220Pune206Surat177Chandigarh136Indore116Cochin114Raipur74Lucknow68Nagpur59Calcutta58Telangana56SC52Cuttack50Visakhapatnam39Rajkot37Patna30Amritsar27Guwahati26Agra16Jodhpur14Kerala12Varanasi11Allahabad8Rajasthan7Dehradun7Ranchi4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji2Andhra Pradesh2Orissa1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1J&K1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 66(1)4Section 2332Section 2(15)2

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/51/2017HC Rajasthan15 Mar 2021

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: (PETITIONER IN OP(ARB) 405/2012 OF DISTRICT JUDGE
Section 2(26)Section 233Section 34

exemption granted under this section shall not extend to buildings for which rent is realised by the owners and to residential houses not being hostels attached to educational institutions and to residential houses attached to libraries.” Similarly, sub-section (26) of Section 2 defines as- “(26) "owner" includes- (a) a person who for the time being is receiving

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021
HC Rajasthan
01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover Regulations, (iv) promoters do not have any right to control other Members of the promoter group by virtue of their status as “promoter”, (v) the doctrine of identification does not apply to large listed companies and (vi) this has been so and so held in the inter-party decision

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

property. If a party is able to show ownership over the intellectual property, upon a request being made via the NPRD form, GoDaddy would be required to investigate and respond to the said request withing a period of 30 days. It is argued that the such methods adopted by GoDaddy show that it is exercising its powers in a Digitally

SHRI VIJAY MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAX-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

properties rendering the order perverse?” 2. The aforesaid questions of law have arisen for consideration on the following factual background: - 3. The Raipur Development Authority, the respondent herein / assessee, is a statutory authority constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 38(1) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENRAL vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA

In the result, the impugned orders of the

ITA/4/2020HC Rajasthan30 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)

HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. H.J. SIWANI FATHER NAME: JUSAB KASAM SIWANI. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. HEMAKUMAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS STA IS FILED UNDER SECTION