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.

9,700 results for “house property”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,349 Delhi1,715 Bangalore824 Chennai800 Karnataka577 Ahmedabad474 Pune382 Kolkata374 Jaipur359 Hyderabad306 Surat189 Cochin189 Chandigarh188 Indore176 Visakhapatnam82 Raipur79 Cuttack76 Lucknow68 Nagpur60 Calcutta58 Telangana56 SC52 Amritsar45 Rajkot40 Guwahati33 Patna29 Agra21 Jodhpur21 Kerala12 Allahabad11 Varanasi11 Dehradun8 Ranchi7 Rajasthan7 Jabalpur4 Punjab & Haryana4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Panaji2 Andhra Pradesh2 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1 Himachal Pradesh1 J&K1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)93 Addition to Income65 Section 54F50 Section 1146 Section 153A45 Exemption42 Disallowance31 Deduction30 Section 2(15)24 Capital Gains

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

house property\ndespite the fact that the provision of the act does not distinguish or exempt any\nbusiness asset being

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 9,700 · Page 1 of 485

...

22

Long Term Capital Gains21

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

house property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt

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

house property\ndespite the fact that the provision of the act does not distinguish or exempt any\nbusiness asset being

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

house property\ndespite the fact that the provision of the act does not distinguish or exempt any\nbusiness asset being

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

house property\ndespite the fact that the provision of the act does not distinguish or exempt any\nbusiness asset being

RAJESH MIRAJKER,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-10(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

property and has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act, :: 2 :: for purchase of new residential house property on 20.07.2012 for an amount

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 713/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

house property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption