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.

82 results for “house property”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi705 Mumbai587 Jaipur286 Bangalore280 Hyderabad185 Chennai169 Chandigarh107 Ahmedabad82 Indore73 Cochin70 Rajkot64 Pune55 Kolkata54 Amritsar45 Agra36 Nagpur34 Raipur31 Patna27 Guwahati26 Surat25 Jodhpur24 Visakhapatnam21 Lucknow19 Cuttack11 Varanasi8 Allahabad7 SC7 Dehradun4 Jabalpur3 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 14858 Addition to Income55 Section 14751 Section 13251 Section 143(3)27 Section 271(1)(c)21 Section 69A20 Section 153C19 Section 250

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisclosed house property income and held that the assessee was having two house properties but the income from other house

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

18

Search & Seizure16

Reopening of Assessment15

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisclosed house property income and held that the assessee was having two house properties but the income from other house

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisclosed house property income and held that the assessee was having two house properties but the income from other house

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisclosed house property income and held that the assessee was having two house properties but the income from other house

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 270A

house property shown in ITR, as discussed in the foregoing paragraph, for the CAM charges claimed by the assessee of Rs.34,29,816/-, no evidence in the form of invoice raised by M/s.Sleek Electrical Pvt.Ltd. is found and therefore the assessee's claim cannot be accepted and therefore the shortfall in rental income shown of Rs.17,08,908/- is added

NARESH GOPALDAS BHOJWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose as per our above observations

ITA 285/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR

undisclosed income from house-property. The undisclosed business income is in relation to the business of trading in shares and commodities

NARESH GOPALDAS BHOJWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose as per our above observations

ITA 282/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR

undisclosed income from house-property. The undisclosed business income is in relation to the business of trading in shares and commodities

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

undisclosed income by taking 8% as net profit ratio on total unaccounted receipts. Since we have directed to estimate the profit at 8%, all the expenditures are deomed to be allowed" (i) Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

undisclosed income by taking 8% as net profit ratio on total unaccounted receipts. Since we have directed to estimate the profit at 8%, all the expenditures are deomed to be allowed" (i) Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

undisclosed income by taking 8% as net profit ratio on total unaccounted receipts. Since we have directed to estimate the profit at 8%, all the expenditures are deomed to be allowed" (i) Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

undisclosed income by taking 8% as net profit ratio on total unaccounted receipts. Since we have directed to estimate the profit at 8%, all the expenditures are deomed to be allowed" (i) Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Properties and projects Ltd. were purchased on 10/10/2014 at the cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and were sold on 20/06/2017 for Rs. 9,97,500/- and similarly 50,000/- shares of Purple Enterprises limited were purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,41,250/- on 02.01.2015 and subsequently sold on 20.06.2017 for Rs. 14,41,250/-. It was submitted

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

undisclosed income of the assessee. Similarly, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made sale of land during the same period amounted to Rs.2,18,56,110/-, which was also added back due to non- compliance and lack of explanation on part of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately for concealment of income. Further

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

undisclosed income of the assessee. Similarly, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made sale of land during the same period amounted to Rs.2,18,56,110/-, which was also added back due to non- compliance and lack of explanation on part of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately for concealment of income. Further

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 272/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 234Section 271ASection 69A

property is Asst.Year 2017-18 - 3– not known. Furthermore, the appellant has not adduced any shred of cogent credible and contemporaneous evidence in support of the cash flow statement it has furnished for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. During appeal no cash flow statement for the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 was adduced. The appellant is showing huge amount

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2150/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

undisclosed investment in this property in the absence of any information furnished by the assessee to justify its cost of construction in the property. 9. The ld.CIT(A) reduced the addition on account of unexplained investment in the residential house from Rs.2,31,936/- to Rs.2,00,599/- allowing adjustment to the DVO’s valuation on account of self-supervision

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2548/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

undisclosed investment in this property in the absence of any information furnished by the assessee to justify its cost of construction in the property. 9. The ld.CIT(A) reduced the addition on account of unexplained investment in the residential house from Rs.2,31,936/- to Rs.2,00,599/- allowing adjustment to the DVO’s valuation on account of self-supervision