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”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai835Delhi414Bangalore163Kolkata153Chennai134Ahmedabad134Chandigarh91Hyderabad80Cochin74Jaipur66Pune58Raipur43Visakhapatnam37Amritsar29Indore24Surat19Calcutta16SC14Lucknow13Karnataka12Cuttack10Telangana10Rajkot7Nagpur7Agra6Guwahati6Jodhpur4Varanasi3Rajasthan2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 2(22)(e)10Section 143(3)8Section 115J8Addition to Income6Section 73(1)3Section 14A3Disallowance3Set Off of Losses3Section 2632

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

deemed dividend_u/s 2(22)(d) of the Act, despite the fact that capital reduction is carried out for NIL consideration. (v). considering transaction of capital reduction of assessee- company, as buy back to be covered u/s 115QA, despite the fact that capital reduction is carried out for NIL consideration. 4. Grounds of Appeal in relation to computation of deduction

Section 1562
Section 1482
Deemed Dividend2

CHUNILAL G. BHANVADIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/RJT/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the act. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the assessing officer by observing as under:- “5.3 Decision in respect of Ground No.2 :- Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions, I find that the facts

CHANDRIKABEN C. BHANVADIA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 463/RJT/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the act. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the assessing officer by observing as under:- “5.3 Decision in respect of Ground No.2 :- Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions, I find that the facts

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lal Chandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36

house property and brought forwarded unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.7,119/- against income from business and income from other sources respectively. As per the provisions of the Act, no setoff of such brought forwarded losses and depreciation is allowable against the income from business and income from other sources. Perusal of the records shows that the A.O. allowed your aforesaid your

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees