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 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,236Mumbai2,201Bangalore791Karnataka623Chennai514Jaipur459Ahmedabad436Hyderabad344Kolkata333Pune206Indore205Chandigarh199Cochin153Surat146Telangana132Visakhapatnam120Rajkot99Amritsar82Raipur79Lucknow65Nagpur59Calcutta56Cuttack55SC45Agra34Guwahati29Patna25Jodhpur19Rajasthan15Varanasi9Kerala8Orissa6Jabalpur5Ranchi5Allahabad5Dehradun4Panaji3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 1475House Property4Section 2633Section 543Section 143(2)2Section 54F2Long Term Capital Gains2Deduction2

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)

40. Just like in all previous years the A.O. has allowed the above-mentioned formula for bifurcation of common expenses therefore the same should be applied after recasting the ratio irrespective of its direct linkage with the cinema business. Ground No: 4 The Ld. A. 0. and C.I.T. (A) has not assigned any reason why gaming zone and event management

SHRI SANJOG PRASAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Addition to Income2
ITA 109/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.109/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Sanjog Prasad, Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), H.No.493, B-Block, Sonari, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur-831011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acupp 8930 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 14.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.50/Jsr/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Assessment Being Completed U/S 147/143(3) Is Ab Initio Void & Illegal. The Subject Matter For The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 Was Already Considered & Looked Into During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment U/S 143(3). As Such, This Initiation Can Only Be Said To Be Change Of Opinion. As Such, Proceeding Being Initiated U/S 147 Is Ab Initio Void, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted. 2. For That The Authorities Below Were Not Justified In Not Considering The Objection Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147. There Was No Fresh Material Available On Record With The Ld. Ao To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. As Such, The Proceeding Being Initiated Merely On Change Of Opinion Is Unjustified, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

40,000/- being the amount of cash withdrawn from the bank account. Complete details for the same was furnished before the authorities below who failed to consider the same and give credit for the same against the addition being made for large cash deposit. 4. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition

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

property in his name benefit u/s.54F was not allowable. In the case of Prakash v ITO [2008] 312 ITR 40 (Bom) one of the questions w« exactly the same being : - “ Whether for qualifying exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax ACT is it necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house

DR. SANJAY KUMAR,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

40,228/- u/s 54 of the Act under the head long term capital gain from sale of piece of vacant land. According to PCIT since the property under reference and sold by the assessee is a vacant piece of land and was not used for residential purpose, deduction u/s 54 of the Act was not allowable as the said section

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