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.

136 results for “house property”+ Section 164clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka462Delhi394Mumbai347Surat136Bangalore114Chandigarh83Jaipur78Chennai70Ahmedabad55Lucknow42Raipur36Kolkata35Telangana32Cochin28Pune24Hyderabad23Indore20Calcutta17Visakhapatnam16Patna8Nagpur6SC5Rajasthan5Allahabad4Orissa3Rajkot3Agra3Jodhpur2Dehradun2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14320Section 25412Section 1478Addition to Income6Section 143(3)5Reassessment4Reopening of Assessment4Section 2(14)3Section 133(6)3

THE UDHNA UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Udhna Udhyognagar Sahakari Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Sangh Ltd, Income Tax, Central Road No.10, P. B. No.10, Circle-1(2), Surat Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaat2932K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushi Parekh - Ca Respondent By : Shri O P Meena – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : : 13/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 08.08.2017 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 ( For Short “The Act”), For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent Of Rs.11,12,720/- While Not Considering The Decision Of Supreme Court In Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit. 2. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Unsold Shops Used For The Business Of Assessee Society. 3. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent On Unsold Shops, Ignoring The Amendment To Section 23(5) W.E.F. Ay. 2018-19. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary & / Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Rushi Parekh - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7

Business Income3
Section 2(14)(iii)2
Section 23(5)

section 23, as noted above, was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 1-4-2018, therefore it does not apply to the assessee society under consideration. Udhna Udhyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 10. If the property is used as 'stock-in-trade', then the said property would become the stock-in trade, and any income derived

SHRI NILESHBHAI P. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1594/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI JAMUBHAI KALYANBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1604/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI SHANKARBHAI R. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI DHARMENDRABHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 150/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI SHARADKUMAR K. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1554/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

DAHYABHAI BHAGABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3122/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

HITESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3125/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

KOKILABEN J. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3181/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI KISHANBHAI R. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 130/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI KARSANBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 148/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI KAMLESHBHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 149/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI BHIKHUBHAI DAYHABHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 151/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SMT. SHARDABEN BHIKHUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 152/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

ASHOK DAHYABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3126/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

BHAVNABEN HITESHBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3121/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

KAMUBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3123/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

NITABEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3124/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SMT. GOMIBEN PREMABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 147/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

BHARTIBEN C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1595/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section