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 11Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi12Mumbai7Chennai5SC5Bangalore5Jaipur3Hyderabad1Ahmedabad1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 11A4Section 22Section 2932Section 652Penalty2Limitation/Time-bar2

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Another 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497. In all these cases the Court was concerned with http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 28 the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise

M/S GUJARAT INDUSTRIES vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I,AHMEDABAD

C.A. No.-005784-005788 - 2007Supreme Court14 Dec 2015
Section 11ASection 2

11A of the Act is invokable and accordingly confirmed the duty demands and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner. 5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop the questions of law formulated/raised by the appellants need to be decided. Civil Appeal Nos. 5784-5788 of 2007 & Ors. Page 4 of 18 Page 5 JUDGMENT 6. We first advert to the central

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

C.A. No.-000142-000142 - 1997Supreme Court06 Mar 1998
For Respondent: PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA & ORS
Section 132Section 293Section 80

house of the first defendant on March 23, 1990 and seized those gold ornaments which weighed 2128 gms. along with other assets. Plaintiff said that she filed a petition before the Income Tax Officer for return of the ornaments but he refused. The plaintiff then issued a notice to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, defendant No.7

M/S. MERCANTILE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

C.A. No.-001854-001855 - 2001Supreme Court11 Oct 2007
For Respondent: Commnr. of Central Excise, Calcutta
Section 11ASection 35L

House, Calcutta. The report of the Chemical Examiner was that Audio Tape Head Cleaner is in the form of colour less liquid and has the characteristics of methanol. Similarly, for Degreasing Cleansing Fluid, the report was that it is in the form of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 colour less transparent liquid and has characteristics

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

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

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section 66 D. The relevant part