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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,580Mumbai2,563Bangalore908Karnataka666Chennai592Jaipur509Ahmedabad451Hyderabad375Kolkata342Chandigarh269Pune247Indore224Surat208Cochin151Telangana151Visakhapatnam150Amritsar114Rajkot88Raipur86Lucknow69Nagpur66SC61Calcutta60Cuttack52Agra40Patna36Jodhpur36Guwahati27Rajasthan17Allahabad12Varanasi11Kerala8Orissa7Dehradun6Panaji4Ranchi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1J&K1Punjab & Haryana1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

House Property3Section 54F2Addition to Income2

M/S JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RNC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

House Property income and thereby disallowing 30% of standard deduction, the CIT(A) relying on the various judicial decisions has observed as under :- “[8.22 Keeping the above principles in mind, the facts as stated by the appellant need to be analysed which are stated at para-7.13(3) (a to g). The agreement that the appellant had entered into with

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

house property" or "ownership of property" as elaborated in sections 22 to 27 and 32 of the Income-tax Act, are very

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133(6)

house property. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the ACIT Vs Sri Vikash Agarwal audit report filed by the assessee that the assessee has taken unsecured loans of ₹ 1.00 crore from M/s Amar Steels, ₹ 1,40,27,614/- from M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises and ₹ 36,10,000/- from M/s JDK Furnitech. Regarding the unsecured loan from M/s Amar

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BAJAJ, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhury/Manav Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

house. He transferred the ownership by agreement of sale dated 09/08/2008 for the consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Shri Om Prakash Bajaj, paid the consideration by four cheques of IDBI Bank. They were of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 05/08/2008, Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 02/09/2008, Rs.8,00,000/- dated 23/10/2008 and Rs.7,51,000/- dated 23/10/2010 aggregating