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.

4 results for “house property”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,459Delhi1,670Bangalore674Chennai475Kolkata434Karnataka424Jaipur307Ahmedabad269Hyderabad222Chandigarh198Pune144Indore92Cochin86Rajkot75Raipur75Telangana72Surat57Amritsar52Lucknow48SC45Cuttack44Patna44Nagpur42Calcutta40Visakhapatnam31Guwahati25Agra15Jodhpur10Varanasi7Kerala7Dehradun5Allahabad4Panaji4Rajasthan4Jabalpur3Orissa2Ranchi1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income2

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

house was scheduled as B-scheduled property and was allotted to S.Mohamed Haneefa. 40. Description of A scheduled property (Exhibit B9): Item No.1: 1 acre 46 cents land comprised in survey number 478/3B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. Item No.2: 7 cents land comprised in survey number 478/2A of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. Total area

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

ITA/21/2019HC Rajasthan
05 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 19Section 28

set up a factory. He accordingly tried to complete the orders, but this export business had to be closed down as no orders were forthcoming from the buyers. He was blamed by the appellant for the failure and closure of the business. 10. Likewise, in March 1978 he along with his mother, had bought a shop No. 22 at Archna

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

loss would be caused to the State of Uttarakhand for a sum exceeding Rs. 13.03 crores; even electricity, water and other facilities have been arbitrarily defined in the Act as “standard rent” to be determined by the Government of Uttarakhand in an arbitrary manner; while citizens are liable to pay electricity, water, sewerage charges etc at the market or service

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