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.

15 results for “house property”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,210Mumbai2,129Bangalore814Karnataka674Chennai468Jaipur339Kolkata322Hyderabad291Ahmedabad263Surat221Chandigarh171Indore151Telangana123Pune122Cochin118Raipur78Nagpur62Calcutta57Amritsar56Lucknow54SC47Agra45Rajkot45Visakhapatnam36Cuttack34Patna29Jodhpur26Guwahati26Varanasi19Rajasthan15Allahabad12Kerala8Orissa7Panaji5Jabalpur5Dehradun5Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2J&K1Punjab & Haryana1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 962Section 2332Addition to Income2

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

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 or is entitled to receive the amount of lease or the rent of any land or building whether on his own account or on account of himself and others or as an agent, trustee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD

In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned judgment and

ITA/83/2020HC Rajasthan07 May 2022

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 28.02.2024 Pronounced On : 21.05.2024 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.83 Of 2020 1.Jainambeevi 2.Sakkinam Begam 3.Mariam Beevi 4.Fathima Beevi 5.Sahul Hameed 6.Umar Habiba 7.Minor.Sirin Farhana

For Appellant: Mr.J.Barathan
Section 96

Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act? 22. The Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs examined one Sahul Hameed, that is, the 5th plaintiff as P.W-1 and one Manikam as P.W-2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-8 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, likewise 2nd defendant Mapillai Meera Mohaideen was examined on the side

M/S SARAF SEASONING UDYOG vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

ITA/322/2017HC Rajasthan09 Jul 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 96

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 29.11.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property bearing no. E-2, Upper Ground Floor, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SONAL JAIN

Appeal is hereby allowed and the suit is

ITA/25/2024HC Rajasthan06 Aug 2024

Bench: The Lsj] Under Order Vii Rule 11 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter Referred To As „Cpc‟] Was Allowed & The Plaint Filed By The Appellant [Plaintiff Before Lsj] Was Rejected. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Parties Before This Court Shall Be Referred To In Accordance With Their Status Before The Lsj. Signed By:Jai Narayan Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 Signature Not Verified

House Property and 6 shops in Anandpur Sahib The aforesaid properties are collectively referred to as the "suit properties".” 6. While filing the suit, the Plaintiff has, in brief, asserted as under: 6.1 The suit is with respect to the properties of Plaintiff‟s paternal lineage. Defendant No.1 is the Plaintiff‟s brother, and Defendant No.2 is her father

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

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 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

34 of the Letters Patent confers testamentary jurisdiction on the High Court, a probate court exercises special and limited jurisdiction as it is not an ordinary Civil Court, nor a company court. In the impugned order passed by the learned single bench dated 18.09.2020, this principle of law has been accepted. It is submitted that a probate petition for letters

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

34 of the Letters Patent confers testamentary jurisdiction on the High Court, a probate court exercises special and limited jurisdiction as it is not an ordinary Civil Court, nor a company court. In the impugned order passed by the learned single bench dated 18.09.2020, this principle of law has been accepted. It is submitted that a probate petition for letters

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act, after such functionaries had demitted public office, would clearly be subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; this was particularly so as such bungalows constituted public property which, by itself,was scarce and meant for the use of current holders of public offices; the questions

SOMI CONVEYOR BELTING LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1 JODHPUR

ITA/21/2019HC Rajasthan05 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 19Section 28

house to be ransacked and all her valuables missing. Next day, she approached the respondent to reason out with him and to persuade him to return to the matrimonial home, but she was physically assaulted and removed from the premises. 27. The appellant claimed that the respondent had no money or property in the year 1974, but after his marriage

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SILVER AND ARTS PALACE

ITA/99/2019HC Rajasthan08 Apr 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

34 noted certain vital defects in the case of the respondent complainant. Such defects noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were as under:  6.1. Though the respondent as PW 1 deposed that the accused. received the money at his house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.

ITA/109/2019HC Rajasthan08 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

34 noted certain vital defects in the case of the respondent complainant. Such defects noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were as under:  6.1. Though the respondent as PW 1 deposed that the accused. received the money at his house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HADOTI PUNJ VIKAS LTD.

ITA/114/2019HC Rajasthan08 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

34 noted certain vital defects in the case of the respondent complainant. Such defects noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were as under:  6.1. Though the respondent as PW 1 deposed that the accused. received the money at his house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/125/2019HC Rajasthan10 Dec 2019

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

34 noted certain vital defects in the case of the respondent complainant. Such defects noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were as under:  6.1. Though the respondent as PW 1 deposed that the accused. received the money at his house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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