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.

169 results for “house property”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,645Mumbai1,324Karnataka564Bangalore543Chennai315Ahmedabad313Jaipur307Hyderabad271Kolkata207Chandigarh174Surat169Indore153Pune133Cochin105Visakhapatnam86Telangana78Raipur61Calcutta54Lucknow52Rajkot38SC36Nagpur36Cuttack34Guwahati25Agra22Amritsar20Jodhpur19Patna11Rajasthan8Varanasi6Dehradun3Orissa3Allahabad2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)32Section 26330Addition to Income21Section 80P20Section 54F16Section 13910Section 1489Deduction9Section 115J8Capital Gains

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 250Section 54F

property at Haven Hills Housing Society for a consideration of Rs.2,65,30,000/- vide Kabja Sahit no Vechan Karar (sale agreement) dated 21.07.2017 and claimed ITA No.19/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Arvindbhai R Raval HUF deduction of Rs.1,59,40,044/-. He submitted that full purchase consideration after deducting TDS of Rs.2,65,000/- u/s 194IA has been paid which is evident from

Showing 1–20 of 169 · Page 1 of 9

...
8
Section 1477
Disallowance5

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE., VAPI vs. SHRI ANAND JAYANTILAL KHARBHARI, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपील./Ita No.231/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. Shri Anand Jayantilal Kharbhari, Vapi. 409, Tirupati Towrs, Gidc Char Rasta, Vapi- 396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajqpk7929K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Poonam Joshi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], In Appeal No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1028054664(1) Dated 24.09.2020, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue As Follows:

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

property, one was flat and one more shop which were used for own purpose and business only.” 6. However, assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that income from prevailing market rate of the house for letting out to Shri Manoj Shahu is at Rs.5,000/- per month that comes to Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, assessing officer disallowed

JAGUBHAI KHALASI,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

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

ITA 240/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

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 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 RAMUBHAI NATUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

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

ITA 72/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 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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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