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.

14,693 results for “house property”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,167 Delhi2,877 Bangalore1,012 Kolkata689 Chennai689 Jaipur685 Ahmedabad658 Karnataka549 Hyderabad548 Pune414 Chandigarh333 Indore300 Cochin242 Visakhapatnam241 Surat169 Rajkot138 Amritsar130 Raipur118 Lucknow97 Telangana82 Nagpur75 Patna58 Calcutta57 Agra55 Cuttack54 Jodhpur46 Guwahati44 Allahabad31 Dehradun29 SC21 Varanasi20 Jabalpur15 Ranchi14 Kerala10 Panaji9 Rajasthan7 Orissa3 Andhra Pradesh2 Himachal Pradesh2 Punjab & Haryana1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)111 Addition to Income78 Section 153A64 Section 14735 Section 14835 Section 69A27 Section 271(1)(c)24 Section 25024 Section 2423 Deduction

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 2484/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

house property of ₹ 100,251,681/–. In the original assessment order, notice under section 143 (2) of the act was undisputedly

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

Showing 1–20 of 14,693 · Page 1 of 735

...

22

House Property22

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

143(2) has not expired. 3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A), in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2. The brief facts of the case

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

House of Parliament. (1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2): Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 278/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 16/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

143(2) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE no "Satisfaction" was recorded by the assessing officer to meet the requirement of law before invoking the provision of section 153C In the case of appellant thereby the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 should have been quashed by the Id. CIT(Appeals

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

143(2) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE no "Satisfaction" was recorded by the assessing officer to meet the requirement of law before invoking the provision of section 153C In the case of appellant thereby the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 should have been quashed by the Id. CIT(Appeals

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Section 54 (1) of the act the assessee is only entitled to the deduction of one residential house property whereas the assessee has claimed deduction on more than one house property, which is not admissible. He further submitted that assessee has not purchased one residential unit, which is combined in any manner. He submitted that assessee has purchased one flat

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Section 54 (1) of the act the assessee is only entitled to the deduction of one residential house property whereas the assessee has claimed deduction on more than one house property, which is not admissible. He further submitted that assessee has not purchased one residential unit, which is combined in any manner. He submitted that assessee has purchased one flat