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.

35 results for “house property”+ Section 44Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi11Mumbai9Hyderabad5Bangalore3Raipur1SC1Ahmedabad1Telangana1Jaipur1Karnataka1Pune1

Key Topics

Exemption16Section 271D14Section 44A14Section 1114Addition to Income14Deduction14Section 143(3)12Section 4412Depreciation11Disallowance

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1768/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

44A, it saved the prescription of this section alone and made futile all provisions of the Act; and while drafting section 44, it rendered useless only the provisions relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property

JANAK VITHALDAS VYAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4722/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 36(1)(viia)10
Section 6810
13 Oct 2025
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194ISection 234ASection 24Section 254(1)Section 44A

section 147 of the Act. The assessee was asked to file return of income. The AO recorded that no response was made by assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24/11/2021 but no compliance was made. Ultimately, the assessee filed return of income on 20/12/2021 declaring incomer of Rs.14,39,080/-. The case was reopened

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word income should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

house and his chambers were disallowed because his object and purpose in travelling was mixed and not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the profession. Coming now to Indian cases; In Mask & Co. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras [(1943) 11 ITR 454] the assessee in breach of his contract sold crackers at a lower rate and a decree

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2384/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

44A of the Act.\n22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the\nrecords. The provisions of section 44 read as under :\n\"44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the\ncontrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the\ncomputation of income chargeable under the head\n`Interest on securities', `Income from house property

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 3003/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

44A of the Act.\n22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the\nrecords. The provisions of section 44 read as under :\n\"44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the\ncontrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to\nthe computation of income chargeable under the head\n`Interest on securities', `Income from house property

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

ITA/240/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014
Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word „income‟ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the 2014:DHC:6159-DB ITA No. 240/2014+ connected appeals Page 5 of 20 trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that\nthere was no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were\nno assessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

ISHWAR CHANDER PAHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

house property and income from other sources. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.23,36,957/- under section 2(1A) of the Act and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act, thus the assessee has claimed tax rebate on agricultural income of Rs.6,01,097/-. The Assessing Officer further

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4801/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 68

house property, income from business and other sources. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed some loan credit for which the assessee was asked to explain the identity, genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the lender. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO made addition of Rs.3 Crores u/s 68 of the Act which

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 485/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 44

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of s. 44 read as under : 10 ITA No.485/Del./2016 "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head ‘Interest on securities’, ‘Income from house property

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4818/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Tarandip Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

44A of the Act. 22. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. The provisions of s. 44 read as under: "44. Insurance business.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head ‘Interest on securities’, ‘Income from house property’, ‘Capital gains’ or ‘Income

TULIKA KEDIA, NEW DELHI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 147/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 147/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 271BSection 44A

house property, capital gains and income from other sources, therefore, the perception of Ld. AO that the assessee’s turnover exceeds the prescribed limit as per section 44AB was a misconception and the same cannot be logically concluded unless the Ld. AO look into various heads which are comprised in the amount of profit as per Profit & loss account. According

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

ITA/7/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

Section 11(1). . 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). . 7. The controversy in question

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

ITA/449/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

ITA/331/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question