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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,114Delhi1,096Karnataka519Bangalore391Ahmedabad279Jaipur247Chennai239Hyderabad191Kolkata168Chandigarh143Cochin124Indore112Pune95Telangana67Visakhapatnam64Surat55Calcutta53Raipur45Rajkot40Agra33Lucknow31Cuttack24Nagpur23Patna22Rajasthan12SC11Amritsar8Jodhpur6Guwahati6Orissa5Allahabad3Dehradun3Jabalpur2Panaji2Ranchi2Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(vii)3Capital Gains2

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

house cannot convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land. She prayed for relief. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, we hold as follows. 6. The ld. CIT(A) at the last paragraph of his order records the fact

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)

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