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.

16 results for “house property”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka475Delhi412Mumbai344Bangalore232Jaipur77Chennai59Ahmedabad51Calcutta50Hyderabad40Cochin39Raipur38Chandigarh37Kolkata37Lucknow34Amritsar30Guwahati21Indore20Telangana17Surat16Nagpur16Patna16Rajkot16Cuttack10Pune9SC8Visakhapatnam6Kerala5Allahabad4Rajasthan4Varanasi4Dehradun3Jodhpur2Ranchi1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26351Section 80I18Section 143(3)16Section 54E14Section 153C10Section 133A9Section 1479Section 1489Survey u/s 133A9Addition to Income

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

house property”. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) issued notice u/s 143(2) on 22.09.2019 and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various dates. In response, the assessee filed various replies and details. The reply and explanation of assessee were accepted by the AO and no addition on any of the impugned issues was made

8
Deduction5
Penalty5

THE ITO, WARD-5(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2575/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 133ASection 80HSection 80I

192 (Pune) wherein project consisted of 16 buildings as per sanctioned layout plan but within prescribed time, only 11 buildings were complete. In that case also Hon'ble ITAT allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) on 11 buildings treating them as housing projects. Similarly, in other case namely Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2963/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 133ASection 80HSection 80I

192 (Pune) wherein project consisted of 16 buildings as per sanctioned layout plan but within prescribed time, only 11 buildings were complete. In that case also Hon'ble ITAT allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) on 11 buildings treating them as housing projects. Similarly, in other case namely Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1856/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 133ASection 80HSection 80I

192 (Pune) wherein project consisted of 16 buildings as per sanctioned layout plan but within prescribed time, only 11 buildings were complete. In that case also Hon'ble ITAT allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) on 11 buildings treating them as housing projects. Similarly, in other case namely Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation

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

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner' of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products

SHRI HITESH HIMMATLAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 347/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Hitesh Himmatlal Savani, I.T.O. 20-21, Keshav Park Society, Ved Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Road, Surat-395008. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Pan No. Bijps 5821 H Gate, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

house property. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee on 31/3/2014. The case of assessee was reopened by the Assessing officer by recording reasons that a survey

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

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Housing Board, Near Tejas School, Bharuch Race Course Road, Vadodara-390023 [PAN : AMZPC 4796 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 341/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Housing Board, Near Tejas School, Bharuch Race Course Road, Vadodara-390023 [PAN : AMZPC 4796 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

housing project, particularly when in course of search and survey operation, no unexplained investment or unexplained expenditure were detected. The ld AR made reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Corporation [I.T. Reference No 15 of 2003] pronounced on 07.11.2014, in which other decision of the Gujarat High Court were cited. 10. It was argued that

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

housing project, particularly when in course of search and survey operation, no unexplained investment or unexplained expenditure were detected. The ld AR made reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Corporation [I.T. Reference No 15 of 2003] pronounced on 07.11.2014, in which other decision of the Gujarat High Court were cited. 10. It was argued that

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

192 of 2000 dated 06.08.2012 (Allahabad High Court). 24. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that if the AO during the course of assessment made detailed enquiry, the assessee given detailed explanation in writing, all the questions and answers furnished by the assessee are part on record of the case and claims of assessee are allowed by AO being

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

192 of 2000 dated 06.08.2012 (Allahabad High Court). 24. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that if the AO during the course of assessment made detailed enquiry, the assessee given detailed explanation in writing, all the questions and answers furnished by the assessee are part on record of the case and claims of assessee are allowed by AO being

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

192 of 2000 dated 06.08.2012 (Allahabad High Court). 24. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that if the AO during the course of assessment made detailed enquiry, the assessee given detailed explanation in writing, all the questions and answers furnished by the assessee are part on record of the case and claims of assessee are allowed by AO being

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

Properties 7,34,69,858 71,020 30,22,62,508 75,00,000 2.48 % Seva Infrastructure 4,07,37,200 3,73,986 42,02,75,928 45,00,000 1.07 % Private Limited Virgo Mercantile 35,60,379 23,34,727 18,83,13,147 45,00,000 2.39 % Private Limited Season Multitrade

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (PAN: AKKPP9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. J.P. Shah, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Manish J. Shah, A.R. Department by Sh. Prasenjeet Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 12.09.2014 passed