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.

11 results for “house property”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,519Delhi1,490Karnataka535Bangalore503Chennai326Jaipur282Kolkata272Ahmedabad249Hyderabad232Cochin127Indore114Chandigarh110Pune101Telangana75Calcutta53Visakhapatnam51Surat49Raipur46Lucknow35Amritsar35Nagpur35Rajkot27Cuttack26SC22Jodhpur13Rajasthan11Guwahati11Agra8Varanasi8Allahabad5Patna5Ranchi4Orissa4Dehradun4Jabalpur3Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1252

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

90 of 2010 dated 03.05.2019; Section 6 of the Act is unconstitutional as it validates retrospectively various illegal orders issued by the State Government for house allotment; a new provision has been retrospectively introduced to overrule/overturn the judgment of this Court which is in violation of the principle of separation of powers - a part of the basic structure

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SUNIL DUTT JAIN

ITA/86/2024HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 125

Section 125 of Cr.P.C., alleging financial deprivation, cruelty, and adultery on the part of the petitioner-husband. During the course of the proceedings, both parties filed their respective affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities. Upon hearing detailed arguments on behalf of both parties and after perusing the material available on record, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated

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

housing loan, the present deal stands null and void and cancelled, and the First party shall be bound to return the bayana amount to the Second party without any interest, penalty etc. and if the First party shall be bound to return the bayana amount to the Second party without any interest, penalty etc. and if the First party fails

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees to the societies or any trust. This Court did not vest the joint APLs with power which PDB during her lifetime did not have in respect

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees to the societies or any trust. This Court did not vest the joint APLs with power which PDB during her lifetime did not have in respect

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

ITA/99/2019HC Rajasthan08 Apr 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

90,000 in the complaint case No.778/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1020/2016, Rs.3,00,000 in the complaint case No.781/2016, Rs.2,00,000 in the complaint case No.782/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.809/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.795/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1412/2016, Rs.90,000 in the complaint

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

90,000 in the complaint case No.778/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1020/2016, Rs.3,00,000 in the complaint case No.781/2016, Rs.2,00,000 in the complaint case No.782/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.809/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.795/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1412/2016, Rs.90,000 in the complaint

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

ITA/114/2019HC Rajasthan08 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

90,000 in the complaint case No.778/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1020/2016, Rs.3,00,000 in the complaint case No.781/2016, Rs.2,00,000 in the complaint case No.782/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.809/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.795/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1412/2016, Rs.90,000 in the complaint

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/125/2019HC Rajasthan10 Dec 2019

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

90,000 in the complaint case No.778/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1020/2016, Rs.3,00,000 in the complaint case No.781/2016, Rs.2,00,000 in the complaint case No.782/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.809/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.795/2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the complaint case No.1412/2016, Rs.90,000 in the complaint

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 rights of the plaintiff and to deceive members of the public into believing that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in fact authorised by the plaintiff to recruit franchisees. The fact that the defendant nos. I and 2 seek deposit of money by potential franchisees into a designated bank account [which account has been opened in the name