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 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi813Mumbai721Karnataka494Bangalore299Jaipur157Ahmedabad127Kolkata102Pune93Hyderabad89Chennai85Indore84Chandigarh73Cochin68Raipur51Calcutta51Telangana50Surat39Lucknow36Patna25Cuttack24Guwahati20Agra20Amritsar18Nagpur17SC10Visakhapatnam9Varanasi6Dehradun6Jodhpur6Rajkot5Rajasthan5Ranchi4Orissa3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 54F9Section 2634Addition to Income3Survey u/s 133A3Deduction3Section 133(6)2Section 54B2House Property2

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

ITA 228/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from

Long Term Capital Gains2

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 135/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 403/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54F

House Property. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs.10,28,919/- by denying the benefits of exemption u/s.54F. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee

CHINTAN UMEDSINH SODHA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.246/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम Chintan Umedsinh Sodha Income Tax Officer “Het” Chitrkutt Society, / Ward – 1(3), Jamnagar Plot No. 21-22, Vs Opp. Khodiyar Co, Jamnagar- 361 006 Gujrat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avgps4814B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 28.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 24.12.2018. Chintan Umedsinh Sodha vs. ITO 2. The Grounds of appeal

SHRI JAWAHAR RAMJIBHAI MORI,,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.23/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Jawaharbhai Ramjibhai Mori, D.C.I.T., Design Workshop Architects Vs. Central Circle-1, Consultants, Rajkot. Trisha Complex, 1, 2Nd Floor, Above Chandan Super Market, Amin Marg. Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr. D.R
Section 133A

133(6)/131(1) of the Act. But we find that no such power was exercised by the authorities below. We find that in the similar facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Page 6 of 8 Asstt. Year 2013-14 the case of CIT vs. Paeveen Juneja [IT Appeal No. 57 of 2017, dated