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.

165 results for “house property”+ Section 74clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,374Mumbai1,166Karnataka553Bangalore505Ahmedabad308Jaipur281Chennai257Hyderabad218Kolkata188Surat165Chandigarh147Indore133Pune127Cochin110Telangana76Visakhapatnam63Raipur57Calcutta54Rajkot45Lucknow37Cuttack37Guwahati29Amritsar27Nagpur26SC21Agra11Varanasi7Jodhpur6Rajasthan6Patna6Dehradun4Kerala4Orissa4Allahabad1Panaji1J&K1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26339Section 143(3)21Section 54F18Section 12A16Addition to Income15Section 2(15)10Section 254(1)9Section 1489Section 688Survey u/s 133A

SHRI PANKAJ KISHORCHANDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.303/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Pankaj Kishorchandra Desai Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 401, Vishal Society, Vidhya Vihar Vs. 123, Majura Gate, Surat Society, Jamnagar, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpd 9704 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Esmayeel O Saherwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena– CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 74Section 74(1)(b)

Section 74 r.w.s. 10(38). (2) Ld. CIT-1 has erred in considering setting off carried forward capital loss against exempt income/tax free income especially those covered U/s.10. (3) Ld. CIT-1 has failed to understand that Ld. DCIT has rightly and consciously allowed carried forward of losses in due course of scrutiny Asst. proceedings

Showing 1–20 of 165 · Page 1 of 9

...
6
Disallowance5
Exemption5

SMT. MANISHABEN RAKESHBHAI NAIK,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 886/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.886/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Vs. The Income Tax Naik, Officer, 26-B, Alka Society, Ward-3, Navsari. Chhapara Road, Navsari, Pan: Acjpn 5740 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 08-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 19-06-2018

Section 143(3)Section 54F

house against the capital gain on sale of land as per provisions of section 54F of the Act “. 3. Succinct facts of the case are that the assessee along with other four co-owners have sold a non-agricultural land located at survey no.39 plot no.4 at Udhna, Surat on 16.07.2010 for the sale consideration of Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

properties, therefore, deduction under Section 54F of the Act is not allowable. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reply on or before 18/11/2019. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply has been received from the assessee, therefore, another opportunity to furnish reply to the show cause notice was given to the assessee by 26/11/2019. The Assessing Officer further

SMT. MINAXIBEN HARSHADBHAI MAVANI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2604/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer, Mavani, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. Vs. 204, Malhar Complex, Icchanath, Surat – 395 007. Pan: Agjpm 8034 B Applicant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

property was jointly owned by the assessee with her husband and was purchased in May 2007 for Rs.3,74,325/-, after indexation of purchase price, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act of Rs.56 lakhs and offered capital gain of Rs.71,189/-. The assessee has shown to have make payment of Rs.1.12 crore to M/s. Elembee Associates

SHANTI ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3065/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 22

section 143 (3) dtd. 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assistant/Day. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Surat respectively (in short “the AO”). 2. We are discussing I.T.A.No. 3064/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12, the findings of which would apply to A.Y. 2012-13 also as facts are identical. Shanti Enterprise v. DCIT

SHANTI ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3064/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 22

section 143 (3) dtd. 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assistant/Day. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Surat respectively (in short “the AO”). 2. We are discussing I.T.A.No. 3064/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12, the findings of which would apply to A.Y. 2012-13 also as facts are identical. Shanti Enterprise v. DCIT

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

ITA 102/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

74 (Chennai-Trib). 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. On the issue of deduction under Section 54B of the Act, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that language of Section 54B is clear and unambiguous. The deduction under Section 54B of the Act is only available

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)

section 41. d. CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. 202 CTR 289 (J&K) Amounts carried forward for years - In the absence of any evidence of cessation of liability , amount which has been merely carried forward for years in the books of account is not asessable under s 41(1).” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

SMT. RENUKABEN UMEDSING PARMAR,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NAVSARI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2493/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2493/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old Patel Street, . Ward-3, Navsari At & P.O.Kukeri, Taluka – Chikhli, District - Navsari – 396 321. [Pan: Aiopp 5256 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Tarun Ghia – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 69Section 69A

74,380/- for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs.2,65,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10. And that no 5 Smt.Renukaben V Parmar Vs. ITO, ITA No.2493/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 proof of agricultural income has been furnished. The assessing officer further took his view that assessee is a Government Employee and was maintaining bank account and that a person who is maintaining

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

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54FSection 55A

74,941/- as per report of DVO. (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making disallowance of Rs. 8,96,000/- under section 54B of Income Tax Act/-. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

HARSHAD KANJIBHAI PANCHANI,SURAT vs. ACIT, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 732/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained investment. The assessee submitted that Rs.29,44,350/- was paid in F.Y. 2015-16 and the balance Rs.1,74,624/- was from current business income and withdrawals from partnership firms, namely M/s Radhe Tex Fab, M/s Sai Krupa Tax, Meera Tex Fab, M/s Vishwa Creation, and Mrs. Arunaben H. Panchani. However

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

house property at Surat were found. However, there were no other evidences relating to expenditure or investment especially to the tune of Rs.2.82 Crores., were found. If the A.O's estimation that three zeros have to be added to the figures on the paper, there should have been some evidences in the form of bills, vouchers, investments etc. found

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

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

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 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 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 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

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