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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 111clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi553Karnataka486Mumbai415Bangalore168Jaipur127Hyderabad99Chennai76Ahmedabad70Telangana59Cochin57Calcutta50Chandigarh44Kolkata44Amritsar40Raipur35Indore34Pune28Lucknow26Cuttack19Rajkot17Agra15Surat14SC14Patna14Rajasthan9Jodhpur9Guwahati7Orissa4Nagpur4Panaji3Allahabad3Visakhapatnam2Ranchi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 54F5Section 143(3)3Section 2632Capital Gains2Deduction2Disallowance2

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

house property No. 22, Chairman Muthurama Iyer Road, Madurai for a sum of Rs. 90,000 subject to incumbrance in the asst. yr. 1975-76 and for the same assessment year he sold plot Nos. 1, 3 and half of plot No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 12,600. The ITO computed the capital gains in respect

SATHI TRINATHA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Bench:
For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

property on 11/12/2012. The Ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 54F(4) of the Act and therefore set-aside the assessment order and directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment after examining the claim made by the assessee by 4 providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being