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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 109clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi539Karnataka535Mumbai363Bangalore215Jaipur76Hyderabad68Kolkata64Cochin58Calcutta54Chennai46Telangana44Raipur37Chandigarh36Ahmedabad34Indore33Nagpur25Pune25Lucknow24Cuttack11Rajasthan9Surat9SC7Guwahati6Rajkot5Orissa4Varanasi4Agra2Allahabad2Patna2Ranchi1Jodhpur1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 2635Section 574Addition to Income4Section 73(1)3Disallowance3Set Off of Losses3Section 10(38)2Exemption2

SMT. MEENABEN KETANKUMAR MAKIM,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR, CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

house properties. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 21 and submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has verified the necessary details. The Ld. AR in support of his contention drew our attention

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

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

Section 57(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. In response to the aforesaid notices, the assessee filed reply on 02-02- 2019 and another reply was filed by the assessee on 22.07.2019 in response to the afore-said notices. As regards the issue of payment of interest on borrowings and receipt on advances, we observe that the assessee vide