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.

10 results for “house property”+ Section 263(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai937Delhi729Karnataka463Bangalore417Kolkata201Chennai141Jaipur132Ahmedabad132Chandigarh83Hyderabad79Indore70Pune60Calcutta53Raipur44Surat44Rajkot32Visakhapatnam29Lucknow29Patna25Amritsar25Agra20Cuttack20Guwahati20Cochin19Nagpur12SC10Telangana9Rajasthan8Jabalpur8Jodhpur6Dehradun5Panaji2Varanasi2Kerala2Allahabad1Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 144C6Section 325Section 80P(4)5Deduction4Section 1543Section 80P(2)(a)3Addition to Income3Capital Gains3Section 192Section 153

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

C.A. No.-007343-007350 - 2019Supreme Court12 Jan 2021

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

Section 147Section 19Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

263 of the IT Act, it was held that the revisional authority was justified in saying that an inquiry has to be conducted into the factual situation as to whether a co-operative bank is in fact conducting business as a co-operative bank and not as a primary agricultural credit society, and depending upon whether this

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

2
Section 153(1)2

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

263 of the Act was passed on 23.03.2004. The assessee filed the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') against the said order of the CIT. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 6 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 7 JUDGMENT The Tribunal vide its order

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

property / building “Paville House” for an amount of Rs.33 Crores. That, the building “Paville House” was constructed by the assessee on the piece of land which was purchased in the year 1972. The said house of the company was duly reflected in the balance sheet of the company. 3.1 It appears that there had been litigation between shareholders

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

263 OF 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2565 of 2026] [Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 1260 of 2025] THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) AND OTHERS .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL IV HOLDINGS .... RESPONDENT(S) Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.01.20 10:13:19 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 WITH CIVIL APPEAL

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

263 of the IT Act and interfered with the assessment orders. The CIT held that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 4 of 45 interest paid by it for the broken period.  The Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of  Vijaya Bank

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

C.A. No.-005869-005869 - 2016Supreme Court05 Jul 2016
Section 115VSection 14Section 2(17)

House Property; (iii) Profits and Gains of Business or Profession; (iv) Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

263. Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

House, Kandla) Cross Examination of Shri Gobind Singh, Manager (Lab), IOCL, Central Laboratory, Mumbai in the matter of SCN F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-11(INT-2/2018 dated 24.04.2019 issued to M/s. Gastrade International & Others by Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate. Q: What is your name·? A: Dr. Gobind Singh. Q: Where have you been working and for how long? A: I have

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

263, and Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 203. • The subject goods, at the time of import, were in the form of aluminium shelves, which are structures made of aluminium. At this stage, the goods cannot be classified as ‘agricultural machines’ because they are neither attached to any other machinery nor can they