Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

19,254 results for “house property”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,392 Delhi4,502 Bangalore1,631 Chennai1,292 Kolkata849 Karnataka651 Jaipur649 Hyderabad644 Ahmedabad569 Pune474 Chandigarh364 Surat300 Indore231 Cochin195 Telangana168 Visakhapatnam143 Amritsar134 Rajkot125 Nagpur120 Raipur118 Lucknow115 Patna79 Agra76 Cuttack75 Calcutta62 SC51 Jodhpur43 Guwahati37 Dehradun27 Varanasi25 Rajasthan22 Allahabad20 Ranchi14 Panaji13 Kerala13 Jabalpur11 Orissa7 Punjab & Haryana4 Andhra Pradesh2 Gauhati2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71 Section 143(3)54 Section 153A53 Section 271(1)(c)40 Section 13237 House Property27 Deduction25 Section 14722 Search & Seizure21 Disallowance

SHARDA CHAMBERS PREMISE CO OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 17(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6554/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR

Income from house property”, no separate or further addition is warranted from house property”, no separate or further addition is warranted

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 19,254 · Page 1 of 963

...

21

ITAT Visakhapatnam

26 Nov 2025

AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

property. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by treating the rental income as business income without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed such income as income from house

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 205/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

properties was to earn rental income, therefore,\nthe subject rental receipts were assessable as its income from house\nproperty and not as business income. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as\nthe primary object of the assessee company was to let out the respective\nproperties to its associates, therefore, the provision of additional

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

property. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by treating the rental income as business income without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed such income as income from house

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Income from house property'. 7.5 In addition to the above, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

addition made on account of income from house property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

addition made on account of income from house property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

addition made on account of income from house property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

addition made on account of income from house property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

property” by the Ld. AO is valid, as against the claim made by the assessee as “income from business”. Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 3. In view of the majority opinion, we hold that the addition made by the revenue authorities treating the income as “income from house

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

property” by the Ld. AO is valid, as against the claim made by the assessee as “income from business”. Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 3. In view of the majority opinion, we hold that the addition made by the revenue authorities treating the income as “income from house

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

house property and not in the nature of revenue from business operations which the assessee had itself considered while filing the original return of income. Therefore, he rejected the assessee’s plea and recomputed the income after considering rental receipts as revenue from business operation and accordingly made an addition

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

addition made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") by treating the rental income earned by the assessee from commercial properties as Income under the head House

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3019/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

income from house property’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3018/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

income from house property’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2250/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

addition on account of interest income\nearned by the assessee from fixed deposits and treating\nas income from other sources and directing the interest\nincome earned should be set off against the WIP/project\ncost and the Ld.DR prayed for allowing the revenue appeal.\nPer Contra, the Ld. AR dealt on the fact sheet of\ncomputation of income under income from

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2248/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

House Property' vs. 'Income from Business/Profession'. Additionally, issues related to the disallowance of expenses, set-off of interest income, and procedural

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2246/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

addition on account of interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposits and treating as income from other sources and directing the interest income earned should be set off against the WIP/project cost and the Ld.DR prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. AR dealt on the fact sheet of computation of income under income from

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2247/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

addition on account of interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposits and treating as income from other sources and directing the interest income earned should be set off against the WIP/project cost and the Ld.DR prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. AR dealt on the fact sheet of computation of income under income from

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2249/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

addition on account of interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposits and treating as income from other sources and directing the interest income earned should be set off against the WIP/project cost and the Ld.DR prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. AR dealt on the fact sheet of computation of income under income from