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 105clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi665Karnataka508Mumbai415Bangalore169Chandigarh104Chennai102Jaipur76Kolkata71Hyderabad69Cochin60Telangana53Calcutta52Ahmedabad44Indore40Raipur33Guwahati21Amritsar21Lucknow19Pune18SC15Rajkot12Cuttack11Visakhapatnam10Surat10Rajasthan9Nagpur7Patna7Varanasi5Jodhpur4Agra4Panaji3Orissa3Dehradun2Allahabad2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 54E14Addition to Income8Section 2(15)6Section 685Section 2014Section 254(1)4Section 143(3)4Section 114Section 1324Exemption

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

105 taxmann.com 204 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that where Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHIRI ASHESH NANALAL DOSHI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is also dismissed

3
Disallowance2
Double Taxation/DTAA2
ITA 32/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 07/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 254(1)

properties, in the assessment order completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 25/12/2017. 8. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed his detailed written submission on all three additions. On the addition of investment

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1935/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R
Section 234BSection 274Section 41(1)

property purely on the basis of assumptions, surmises and conjectures. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A.) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE RAM DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1841/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1841/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S Shree Ram Developers, Of Income Tax, Central “Shrushti Row House”, Circle-2, Surat. Kosad, Surat 394 107. [Pan: Abkfs 4321 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin K.Parekh – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 08.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat Dated 11.04.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S.69A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Spite Of The Fact That Shri Ankurbhai Babariya, One Of The Trustworthy Person Of Shri Jayantibhai Babariay, A Partner Of M/S Shree Ram Developers Had Explained That Seized Documents From His Premise Are Related To Shrusti Row House Maintained By Him Which Was Later On Also Admitted By Him In His Statement On Oath & This Project Was Developed By The Assessee Firm I.E. M/S Shree Ram Developers. Also, There Was No Denial That On Money Has Been Seized In The Shrusti Row House Project. [2] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred To Held The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Dcit Vs. Shree Ram Developers /

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

property. A search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Shri Ankur Babariya at 20, Ram Krupa Society, Saroli Road, Puna Gaon, Surat on 17.07.2012. From his premises, certain papers in the form of ledger accounts were seized as Annexure –A/1, A/3 and A/5. Shri Ankurbhai Gordhanbhai Babariya was working with the partners

ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 189/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 254(1)

House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment, which are reproduced below: "3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility' ie., the fourth limb of the definition of ' charitable purpose' contained in section

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 190/SRT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 254(1)

House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment, which are reproduced below: "3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility' ie., the fourth limb of the definition of ' charitable purpose' contained in section

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

105 Taxman 742/239 ITR 587 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Metropolitan Water tax Cases Appeals Nos.500-501 of 2005, [2011] 14 taxmann.com 73/202 Taxman 454/[2012] 348 ITR 5.30 (Mad.) with a request for clarification as to whether the tax is to be deducted under sub-section (1) of section

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

105 Taxman 742/239 ITR 587 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Metropolitan Water tax Cases Appeals Nos.500-501 of 2005, [2011] 14 taxmann.com 73/202 Taxman 454/[2012] 348 ITR 5.30 (Mad.) with a request for clarification as to whether the tax is to be deducted under sub-section (1) of section

HARISHBHAI G. CHOVATIYA,SARTHANA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.486/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Harishbhai G Chovatiya Income Tax Officer, 18, Bapa Sitaram Row House, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Vs Kamrej Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana, Majura Gate, Surat- 394101 Surat-395001 Pan No: Agdpc 6539 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69A

House, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Vs Kamrej Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana, Majura Gate, Surat- 394101 Surat-395001 PAN No: AGDPC 6539 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 17.07.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

105 ITR 212 (SC)). In my considered opinion, this is not the case where addition should have been made u/s 153C, but w/s 147/143(3) after making proper enquires. In the present facts of the case, the addition is not legally sustainable and is deleted. Appellant gets relief of Rs.25,00,96,500/-.” The Hon’ble Court thereafter has given