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.

17 results for “house property”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,013Delhi2,819Bangalore1,257Chennai1,019Ahmedabad654Kolkata645Jaipur628Hyderabad561Pune490Karnataka446Chandigarh323Cochin252Indore222Visakhapatnam175Surat144Telangana115Amritsar114Rajkot102Cuttack98Raipur93Nagpur73Lucknow68SC45Agra44Patna43Jodhpur39Calcutta27Dehradun24Varanasi17Kerala16Guwahati15Allahabad13Jabalpur12Panaji10Rajasthan10Ranchi10Orissa6Punjab & Haryana3Himachal Pradesh2J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)24Section 80P24Section 1112Section 2(15)12Section 1011Section 14810Addition to Income7Section 69B6Section 12A6

SMT. SEEMA SHAH,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 211/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

deduction u/s 54 of the 1961 Act, for investment made by the assessee in the new residential house property. The dispute

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD., ,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

ITA 80/VNS/2018[2009-2010]Status: Disposed
Exemption6
Disallowance5
Deduction4
ITAT Varanasi
09 Jun 2022
AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 4Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

ITA 82/VNS/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 4Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

ITA 81/VNS/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 4Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

house property or in shares or in bands, without proving the factual existence of such an investment? There must be some starting point. It would be all too easy (and oppressive (sic) for an Income-tax Officer to say to an assessee that "your background shows that you have a lot of money. You must have invested it. Now tell

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Chand Adv. & Sh. Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

house property or in shares or in bonds, without proving the factual existence of such an investment? There must be some starting point. It would be all too easy (and oppressive (sic) for an Income-tax Officer to say to an assessee that "your background shows that you have a lot of money. You must have invested it. Now tell

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri. Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri. A. K. Singh
Section 54(2)Section 54BSection 54F

house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS. In this case it is a fact that the appellant had invested the amount of capital gain in a flat which was purchased by her in the year 2011 whereas the capital gain arose in the month of march 2013, thus it is clear that

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/VNS/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment

KANCHAN SARRAF,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 85/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment

PRAMOD KUMAR,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 84/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

properties, dues realizable etc. shall revert back to State Government. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon several judicial precedents to hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 11 to 13 of the 1961 Act, as its activities/affairs are run on commercial lines with an intent to make profits, and clearly the assessee is hit by proviso

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

properties, dues realizable etc. shall revert back to State Government. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon several judicial precedents to hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 11 to 13 of the 1961 Act, as its activities/affairs are run on commercial lines with an intent to make profits, and clearly the assessee is hit by proviso

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

properties, dues realizable etc. shall revert back to State Government. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon several judicial precedents to hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 11 to 13 of the 1961 Act, as its activities/affairs are run on commercial lines with an intent to make profits, and clearly the assessee is hit by proviso

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

properties, dues realizable etc. shall revert back to State Government. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon several judicial precedents to hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 11 to 13 of the 1961 Act, as its activities/affairs are run on commercial lines with an intent to make profits, and clearly the assessee is hit by proviso

BLOSSAM HOUSE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/VNS/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Blossam House Educational V. Income Tax Officer, Society, 579, Teliabagh, Church Ward-3(1), Varanasi Compound, Maldahiya, Varanasi Pan-Aaatb7686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Atul Choudhary, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Choudhary, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 40

House Educational v. Income Tax Officer, Society, 579, Teliabagh, Church Ward-3(1), Varanasi Compound, Maldahiya, Varanasi PAN-AAATB7686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Atul Choudhary, C.A. Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

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

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

property and no explanation was made by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income from any particular source. Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

property and no explanation was made by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income from any particular source. Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District