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.

3,129 results for “house property”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi754Mumbai706Karnataka501Bangalore231Jaipur134Chennai110Hyderabad98Kolkata86Cochin67Ahmedabad53Calcutta51Pune44Chandigarh43Telangana39Raipur34Lucknow30Guwahati22Indore17SC16Surat16Visakhapatnam14Nagpur9Rajkot8Cuttack7Panaji6Jodhpur5Agra5Patna5Rajasthan5Kerala4Orissa3Allahabad2Amritsar1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 143(3)42Section 13242Search & Seizure36Section 153C35Section 139(1)34Section 6934Section 14730Section 26327Section 153A

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 3,129 · Page 1 of 157

...
26
Disallowance15
Deduction12
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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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 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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

house property, remuneration and interest on capital from partnership firm, capital gain and from other sources. " Thus, the assessee had made full and true disclosure of his claim of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/11/2009

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

house property' under section 22 of the Act. It is at the outset submitted that the incurrence or non-incurrence of such expenses by the appellant is not at all relevant for the issue at hand. It is not the case/ submission of the appellant that since certain services were to be provided by the appellant; as business income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

ITA 255/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nikhelesh KatariA-C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary -JCIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 24Section 44ASection 54Section 80C

154 of the Act. This is also clear from the following submissions that the ld. AO has taken a easiest route just to make addition instead following the process of law. 1.5.1 Deduction can be granted ‘as a whole’ either in section 54 or section 54F – ld. AO already determined the house property

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

ITA/1076/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/143/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

ASHISH DHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiashish Dhawan, Vs. Acit, 55-A, Jor Bagh, Circle-31(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adlpd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 154Section 54ESection 54F

154 of the Act. 2. The ld CIT(A) and ld AO have erred in law and on the basis of the case in reducing the exemption claimed by the appellant under section 54F of the Act by excluding Rs. 1231260/- incurred in relation to the construction of residential house property

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

ITA/144/2016HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 173Section 5(1)

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

JAYABEN V. SHETH & OTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 7219/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7219 /मुं/2018 ("न.व.2015-16) M/S.Jayaben V Sheth & Others, 3, Ground Floor, Vincent View, Dr. B.A.Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai 400 014. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aadfj4327Q बनाम/ Vs. The Acit 19(2), Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Phalgoon DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23Section 23(1)(c)

House Property’ against ‘Income from Other Sources’. The return of the assessee was processed by CPC Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 24/04/2016. Thereafter, CPC, Bangalore passed rectification order under section 154

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 895/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 37

section 27(iiib), the appellant\nwas 'deemed owner of the premises as it had acquired leasehold\nright in the land for more than 12 years; in agreements for sub-\nlicensing the words lease compensation were used instead of\nlicense fees and deposits were referred as 'sub-lease deposits",\nproperty tax had been levied on the assessee.\n14.3. The Tribunal also

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

154 of the Act, by which, the matter stood remitted back, the Appeal of the Revenue and the Appeal of the appellant, challenging the Rectification Order, came to be dismissed. 13. This, in turn, triggered the Appeal, i.e., M.A. 214 of 2002 before the High Court by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. The High Court, inter alia

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & Arta Trana Panda, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

154: The Appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2017 submitted that deduction u/s 54 was correctly claimed, inasmuch as, the new property was purchased on 19.1.2011 Le the date of conveyance deed. Since the original asset was transferred on 5.8.2011, therefore, the new property was purchased with-in one year of transfer of original asset (page 50 of paper book) Notice