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.

9 results for “house property”+ Section 56(2)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai352Delhi346Bangalore112Chandigarh93Jaipur81Hyderabad75Kolkata50Ahmedabad42Raipur29Guwahati21Chennai21Pune21Nagpur17Lucknow15Surat10SC9Rajkot9Jodhpur8Indore7Cuttack7Agra4Visakhapatnam3Ranchi1Dehradun1Amritsar1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 144C6Section 80P(4)5Section 104Section 653Section 80P(2)(a)3Penalty3Section 260A2Section 1532Section 153(1)2Double Taxation/DTAA

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)

56. Act to apply to co-operative societies subject to modifications.—The provisions of this Act, as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to, banking companies subject to the following modifications, namely:— (a) throughout this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (i) references

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

2
Deduction2
Limitation/Time-bar2
C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

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

Section 260A

2(m) of the said Act defined net wealth as being predicated with reference to assets “belonging to” the assessee. The assessee in the said case had sold out the property without executing the sale deed. The possession was 13 1986 (supp.) SCC 700 48 handed over to the buyer after receiving full consideration. The Court notices the following statement

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 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

2 WLR 449 : (1981) 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

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-005167-005167 - 2008Supreme Court16 Mar 2015

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 260A

56. In the present case, the questions which arise for our determination are: (i) Whether the society or body is occupying and using the land and building for a charitable purpose within the meaning of sub-section (4)? (ii) What is the meaning of the expression “supported wholly or in part by voluntary contribution”? (iii) Whether any trade or business

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

C.A. No.-000009-000009 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax, Mumbai
Section 241

x) Assuming that the income from the offshore supply is chargeable to tax in India on the premise that Section 9(1)(i) applies, it was required to be examined by the Authority as to whether it would also be chargeable in accordance with the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in terms whereof no charge

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

x), (y), (z), (za), (zb), (zc), (zh), (zi), (zj), (zk),(zl), (zm), (zn), (zo), (zq), (zr), (zs), (zt), (zu), (zv), (zw), (zx), (zy), (zz), (zza), (zzb), (zzc), (zzd), (zze), (zzf), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzl), (zzm), (zzn), (zzo), (zzp), (zzq), (zzr), (zzs), (zzt), (zzu), (zzv), (zzw), (zzx), (zzy), (zzz), (zzza), (zzab), (zac), (zzad), (zzze), (zzzf), (zzzg,) (zzzh), (zzzi), (zzzj), (zzzk

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 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

56,07,05,595/­ (Rupees Fifty Six Crore Seven Lakh Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five Only) alleged to have been not   paid   by   the   assessee   on   the   service   of   Information Technology Software Service vide its Order in Original dated 28.01.2016.  10. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional   Director   General   (Adjudication),   DGCEI,   preferred the Service