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.

11 results for “house property”+ Section 131(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi550Mumbai417Bangalore229Jaipur158Hyderabad105Pune94Chennai83Cochin78Chandigarh70Raipur55Ahmedabad41Indore35Kolkata34Amritsar24Nagpur23Rajkot22Guwahati22Patna19Surat17Visakhapatnam11Jodhpur11Lucknow11SC11Varanasi7Agra3Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 144C6Section 806Section 1424Section 10(20)4Section 1323Section 103Section 194A3Section 1232Deduction2Addition to Income

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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)
2
Exemption2
Section 44B

131 Comp Cas 451, that even if a non-obstante clause has wide amplitude, the extent of its impact has to be measured in view of the legislative intention and legislative policy. Further, the utility of non-obstante clause is where there is a conflict between what is stated in a provision and any other law for the time being

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)

131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

1 All ER 865 (HL)] enunciated the look at test. According to that test, the task of the Revenue is to ascertain the legal nature of the transaction and, while doing so, it has to look at the entire transaction holistically and not to adopt a dissecting approach. 97. One more aspect needs to be reiterated. There is a conceptual

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000792-000793 - 2014Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 194ASection 3

131 to the 4 Bankers of the appellant. Notice dated 21.09.2005 under Section 194A was also sought to be quashed. The writ petition was contested by the Income Tax Department. The High Court in the writ petition decided the only question “whether New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is a local authority after 01.04.2003 within the meaning of Section

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

1 explicitly states that the classification of a good should prioritise chapter headings, chapter notes, and section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SRIEHMAL NAWALAKHA

Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High

C.A. No.-006725-006725 - 1994Supreme Court16 Aug 2001
For Respondent: SIKBHMAL NAWALAKHA
Section 122Section 123Section 2Section 4

1) SCR 615 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. The respondent was the owner of immovable property and by declaration dated 10th October, 1966 he sought to give a gift of certain out-houses attached to a building to his wife. The declaration which was made was not registered. The Gift Tax Officer rejected the respondent

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

C.A. No.-004049-004049 - 1994Supreme Court23 Feb 2000
For Appellant: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Section 10(29)Section 256(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

131 ITR 207] which was affirmed by this Court in Waterfall Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [219 ITR 563]. That was a case under Section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee in that case was carrying on different ventures, profits from some of them were taxable and from the other were exempt under the Act. In respect

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

131 of 2002 and, in any case, it being a matter of interpretation of statutory language of Section 80-O and its Explanation (iii), 41 the contention on behalf of the appellant about want of challenge to the findings is without substance. Rejoinder submissions on behalf of the appellant 11. The submissions made on behalf of the respondent have been