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 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,353Delhi862Karnataka442Bangalore412Jaipur279Ahmedabad217Chennai206Hyderabad197Kolkata189Surat185Cochin148Pune132Chandigarh121Amritsar108Indore107Visakhapatnam76Rajkot60Calcutta50Nagpur45Raipur37Patna37Telangana33Allahabad25Lucknow23Jodhpur20Guwahati16Cuttack14Dehradun9Varanasi9SC8Agra8Jabalpur6Panaji5Ranchi5Rajasthan4Kerala2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 54F7Section 1486Section 2504Addition to Income3Section 133(6)2Section 148A2Capital Gains2Disallowance2Reassessment2

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

ITA 38/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

Section 133(6)Section 2Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 18.03.2020 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Ms. Lavanya Gadodia submitted that the sole issue that arises for adjudication in the appeal is whether the land sold by the assessee, by way of a registered sale deed is a capital asset as defined

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RAN/2025[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–12 declaring a total income of ₹5,56,050, showing income from salary and house property

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [PAN: AABFM2851Q] vs. ACIT, CC-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 21, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This

SRI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SUKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 194/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.194/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramakrishnan Nair Sukesh Kumar.…...…..................……...…..….. Appellant Quarter No.R I/1, Birla Institute Of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215. [Pan: Abtpk1985G] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley , Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2,69,248/- out of the total deduction claimed u/s 54F for Rs.73,21,565/-. Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said disallowance

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here