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.

13 results for “house property”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi616Mumbai606Bangalore300Hyderabad131Chandigarh115Chennai112Jaipur112Ahmedabad68Kolkata55Raipur51Indore43Surat36Agra28Amritsar26Pune23Guwahati22Lucknow19Nagpur18Rajkot16SC13Patna13Cochin12Visakhapatnam11Jodhpur5Allahabad3Varanasi2Jabalpur2Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 13214Section 158B9Section 144C6Addition to Income4Section 1543Section 32A3Section 803Depreciation3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 260A

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act. 158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act where after the 30th day of June, 1995, a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
2
Section 1472
Search & Seizure2
Section 132
Section 158B

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]”. 21. Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act are machinery provisions. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

assessing officer would have to find that the appellant by the deliberate act of short delivering the goods and continuing with the possession of the goods not only contrary to the contract but also to the law of the land, both in the Carriers Act 1865 and breaking the penal law as well, the appellant must be treated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8) ‘8. … The amending clause does not seek   to   explain   any   pre­existing legislation   which   was   ambiguous   or defective.   The   power   of   the   High Court   to   entertain   a   petition   for exercising   revisional   jurisdiction was   before   the   amendment   derived from   Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. LUCAS T.V.S. LTD. PADI CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

C.A. No.-005950-005952 - 2007Supreme Court14 Dec 2007
For Respondent: M/s Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. Padi Chennai
Section 32ASection 33Section 43A(1)

house; (b) Any office appliances or road transport vehicles; (c) Any ship, machinery or plant in respect of which the deduction by way of development rebate is allowable under section 33; and (d) Any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

C.A. No.-000769-000769 - 2008Supreme Court29 Jan 2008
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax (Inv.) and Ors
Section 132Section 132(3)

block period in terms of Chapter XIV-B. Section 158 relates to retention and not appropriation. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7 9. Stand of the respondents on the other hand was that reference to Section 153A in Section 132B shows that it relates to estimated liability. Though it is accepted that the provision relating

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

block assessment in terms of Chapter 25 XIV-B of the Act. The test to consider the justiciability of belief is whether such reasons are totally irrelevant or whimsical. The reply in the counter affidavit shows that the intention of the Revenue was to un-layer the layering of money which is suspected to be done by the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; and (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (ii) any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking and electronic data

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005167 - 2022Supreme Court05 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 35LSection 65Section 66ESection 73(1)Section 83

assessable to the sales tax? He submitted that the principal contention of the appellants before this Court in the case of the  TATA Consultancy Services  (supra) was that the canned software was “intangible property” and hence would not come within the definition of the “goods”.  He would submit that the   issue   was   clearly   not   whether   the   canned   software   was “goods

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

assessment, while Section 144 thereof speaks of Best Judgment Assessment. Section 143 of the Act speaks of an assessment made when a return has been filed under Section 139 or in response to a notice under sub- section (1) of Section 142 and the return is processed leading to an assessment order being passed by the Assessing Officer. However when

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

C.A. No.-007780-007781 - 2010Supreme Court09 Sept 2010
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-. The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. However, the said Section deals with claim for depreciation of items acquired

AKBAR BADRUDDIN JIWANI vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-003655-003655 - 1989Supreme Court14 Feb 1990
For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

houses, buildings, or works which would otherwise have been unnecessarily enumerated." It has been secondly submitted on behalf of the appel- lant that the general principle of interpretation of tariff entries occurring in a tax statute is that of commercial nomenclature or understanding in the trade. It is also a settled legal position that the said doctrine of commercial nomenclature

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

C.A. No.-005531 - 2025Supreme Court06 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 46

assesses and used by them in the production of nylon yarn could be classified, for the purpose of levying excise duty, under Item 15- A in Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it stood during the period from 1962 to 1972. Item 15-A was amended in 1964. Before its amendment, the heading