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.

122 results for “house property”+ Section 13(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,035Delhi3,657Bangalore1,307Chennai905Karnataka782Jaipur718Ahmedabad644Hyderabad610Kolkata598Pune472Chandigarh369Surat298Indore276Cochin236Visakhapatnam225Telangana203Amritsar148Rajkot122Raipur120Lucknow94Nagpur92Cuttack91SC71Calcutta63Agra62Guwahati44Jodhpur42Patna39Dehradun30Rajasthan24Varanasi20Allahabad15Kerala13Panaji10Ranchi10Orissa9Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A119Section 143(3)76Addition to Income54Section 80I38Section 271(1)(c)30Deduction25Section 13222Penalty22Section 14721Disallowance

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)

house Property instead of business income and considering the same as not eligible for computing deduction u/s 801A though the Rent Income has direct nexus with the 80IA eligible business activity of the assessee, being income derived from the business and further issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Rajkot bench in assessee's case

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

21
Section 8018
Section 143(2)17

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1) M/S.Aryan Arcade P.Ltd. Rajkot. Vs C/O. Milestone Property Mg Basement Grant Central Mall Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT(DR)
Section 23Section 24Section 250(6)

2,30,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 07.06.2008 25,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 22.12.2008 14,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 27.09.2008 3,50,000 JPIPL (SC) 03.02.2009 10,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 03.03.2009 8,00,000 JPIPL (SC) 05.03.2009 4,00,000 JPIPL (SC.) 27.04.2009 6,00,000 IL & FSr M Fund- 1 14.10.2008 1,00,00,000 JPIPL

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54Section 54F

13 M/s. Chandrakant H. Kakkad vs. ITO restricted only to the date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act but would include all sub section of Section 139 including sub section (4) of the Act. On the above basis it concluded that if the amount is utilized before the last date of filing of the return under Section

M/S. PATEL COPPER PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) (4), , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, A-76, Aashopalav Bunglows, Ward 2(1)(4), Nr. Satya Sai Hospital, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aagcp 6173 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)

property at Rs.7,35,000/- @ Rs.642/- per square metre whereas the valuer has estimated the value of the land at Rs.8,000/- per sq. yard without giving any basis of such valuation. Thus the land which has been acquired during the year itself at Rs.8,74,460/- and whose jantri value is only Rs.7,35,000/- is 5 M/s. Patel

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 16/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)

13[3] on the other side and only when the consideration is found to be unreasonable or excessive, then the question of withdrawal of exemption under section 11 will arises. Whether the consideration is reasonable or excessive is to be judged from the fair market value of such consideration between two unrelated parties in arm’s-length situation

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)

13[3] on the other side and only when the consideration is found to be unreasonable or excessive, then the question of withdrawal of exemption under section 11 will arises. Whether the consideration is reasonable or excessive is to be judged from the fair market value of such consideration between two unrelated parties in arm’s-length situation

THE JT. CIT (EXEMPTIONS)(OSD), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT

In the result, the Revenue appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 369/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us That This Similar Issue Is Being Adjudicated By The Very Same Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rjt/2015 Vide Order Dated 29.06.2022 Relating To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Further This Order Has Been Followed In Ita No. 472, 1170 & 2316/Ahd/2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 By Order Dated 31.08.2022. Now The Present Assessment Year Is 2015-16, Which Is Fully Covered By The Above Orders Of This Tribunal & Copy Of The Orders Are Also Placed On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Desai, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

13[3] on the other side and only when the consideration is found to be unreasonable or excessive, then the question of withdrawal of exemption under section 11 will arises. Whether the consideration is reasonable or excessive is to be judged from the fair market value of such consideration between two unrelated parties in arm’s-length situation

ANILBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 363/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)

13. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that both the authorities have not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee about the usage of the properties for the business purpose, and estimation of the rental value of the properties. The ld.AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that

ASHWINBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 364/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)

13. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that both the authorities have not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee about the usage of the properties for the business purpose, and estimation of the rental value of the properties. The ld.AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that

BHARATBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ Prop Of M/S.Pushpam Circle-2 Vs. Creation Rajkot Mehul Textile Nagar Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adppp 6615 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.DR
Section 54F

2,21,902/-on account of investment in the residential house property. The assessee purchased such house property in the name of his wife. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee can claim the benefit of deduction under section 54F of the Act if the investment is made in the residential house property in his name

SOPAN DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 96/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.96/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)Section 263

house property on notional basis under section 22 read with section 23 of the Act but the assessee has not done so. According to the Ld. PCIT, this fact was not verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice dated 13 January

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

ITA 211/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801A(4)

house and demolition of OHT at Gotri Harinagar 67 Supplying and laying Dl delivery line in command area of Tandalja OHT (VMC Department) 68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

ITA 217/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801A(4)

house and demolition of OHT at Gotri Harinagar 67 Supplying and laying Dl delivery line in command area of Tandalja OHT (VMC Department) 68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

ITA 216/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801A(4)

house and demolition of OHT at Gotri Harinagar 67 Supplying and laying Dl delivery line in command area of Tandalja OHT (VMC Department) 68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

ITA 203/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 801A(4)

house and demolition of OHT at Gotri Harinagar 67 Supplying and laying Dl delivery line in command area of Tandalja OHT (VMC Department) 68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY

SHRI NITINBHAI T. BHUPTANI, L.I.C,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-4,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 13/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountatn Member & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Rjt/2016 & 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Khurana, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

13 respectively. 15. Ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset contended that this issue was considered by the ITAT in A.Y. 2008-09 and Tribunal has set aside to the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to take the ALV of the property equivalent to the vale determined by municipal corporation for the purpose

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

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