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.

123 results for “house property”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Delhi32Jaipur7Kolkata7Chennai3Surat2Bangalore2Pune1Rajkot1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A108Section 115J93Section 143(3)65Addition to Income50Disallowance47Section 80I36Deduction32Section 14830Section 92C25Section 147

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

house property, to bring into operation, the proviso to section S4F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

Showing 1–20 of 123 · Page 1 of 7

20
Section 8020
Transfer Pricing18

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

ITA 545/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to ", to bring into operation, the proviso to Section ", to bring into operation, the proviso to 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if . The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if . The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACT1507C] Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1(1), Mumbai …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri K.K. Mishra For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Shri Hardik Nirmal Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 27.05.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACT1507C] Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1(1), Mumbai …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri K.K. Mishra For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Shri Hardik Nirmal Date of conclusion of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 27.05.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

house Property instead of business income and considering\nthe same as not eligible for computing deduction u/s 801A though the Rent Income has\ndirect nexus with the 80IA eligible business activity of the assessee, being income\nderived from the business and further issue is covered in favour of assessee by the\ndecision of Rajkot bench in assessee's case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of section115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly worded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the undisclosed income, if any, is not liable to be included while computing book profit for the purpose of section 115JB

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

House, Aayakar Bhavan 5th Floor, 104 5th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACB4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S. Vankatraman Revenue by Shri Shishir Dhamija Date of Hearing 05/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5428/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2011-12 arises

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

115J\nof the Act. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section\n115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of\nsection115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly\nworded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the\nundisclosed income, if any, is not liable

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

ITA 492/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

house Property. As far as the difference in amount of rent offered for taxation and the amount of rent as per 26AS, the AO is directed to verify the documents and reconcile. The Assessee shall submit all relevant documents to the AO. Therefore, to the extent of difference, the issue is set aside to the AO for verification after giving

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

115J\nof the Act. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section\n115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of\nsection115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly\nworded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the\nundisclosed income, if any, is not liable

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
Section 115J

115J\nof the Act. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section\n115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of\nsection115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly\nworded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the\nundisclosed income, if any, is not liable

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

115J\nof the Act. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section\n115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of\nsection115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly\nworded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the\nundisclosed income, if any, is not liable

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115J

115J\nof the Act. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section\n115J of the Act but the ratio is applicable to the provisions of\nsection115JB of the Act as well since the provisions are similarly\nworded. Hence, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the\nundisclosed income, if any, is not liable