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.

3 results for “house property”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,610Mumbai1,395Bangalore587Karnataka555Jaipur390Ahmedabad298Chennai297Hyderabad275Kolkata209Surat196Chandigarh190Indore165Pune165Cochin148Amritsar99Visakhapatnam96Telangana82Raipur78Calcutta54Lucknow53Cuttack53Rajkot48Nagpur43Guwahati28Agra27Allahabad23SC21Jodhpur20Dehradun11Patna11Varanasi8Rajasthan7Orissa3Ranchi3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 54F7Section 56(2)(vii)3Addition to Income3Capital Gains2

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

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 197/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 144Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

69,96,455/­ on account of capital gain ignoring the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assesse is a retired bank employee. Since no notice could be served upon him, he was not able to adduce evidences on his behalf. The appellant stated before AO that

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

69,248/- out of the total deduction claimed u/s 54F for Rs.73,21,565/-. Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said disallowance observe that the amount invested in 2 years from the sale can only be allowed. On the other hand, we claimed that deduction for amount shall be upto investment made in 3 years as a flat in under construction