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.

87 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi603Mumbai522Jaipur230Bangalore189Hyderabad183Chennai143Chandigarh111Cochin102Ahmedabad87Indore76Pune71Rajkot62Nagpur60Amritsar48Kolkata38Raipur35Visakhapatnam35Surat35Lucknow28Guwahati27Agra26Patna17Jodhpur13Allahabad10Cuttack8SC4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Panaji2Varanasi2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 14874Addition to Income68Section 14755Section 13253Section 6937Section 143(3)37Section 26332Unexplained Investment28Section 25020Search & Seizure

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

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

20
Section 69A19
House Property18

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

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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)

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

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)

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

KHYATI DILIPKUMAR DAVE,DUBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,INT.TAX.,AHM, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT,INDIA

In the result, Ground No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid addition is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/AHD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Adani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69Section 69A

unexplained investment in immovable property, the CIT(A) observed that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- had been sourced out of housing

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 54ASection 54F

property other than the new asset, on the date of transferring of original asset. The law on this issue is specific. If the assessee owns more than one residential house, he will not be entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. The manner in which the residential house is utilised, i.e. whether

NALINIBEN DIPAKBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 170/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2016-17 Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-4 12A Narayan Nagar Vs Anand. Dakor Road, Kapadwanj Kheda 387 620. Pan : Agopp 2625 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025

For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,18,19,600/- u/s 69A of the Act, 8. The appellant craves the right to add to or niter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal," 3. The brief facts

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Property being Land and building in AY-2015-16 and 2016-17. Year wise detailed breakup of payment/ investment and The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals) 4 reference of seized incriminating material, on the basis of which the Special Auditor calculated such out of books investment to the extent of Rs.60,85,42,590/- the on-money payment

UDAY RAMESH NAYAK,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - INT. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay K. Lal, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 271ASection 69

house property as unexplained and thereby making an addition u/s. 69 of the Act. 2. The learned DRP and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.13,72,952/- to the total income of the Appellant despite the fact that no such amount was paid by the Appellant. 3. The learned AO erred in fact

KAVIT CORPORATION,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(3), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

ITA 922/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 922/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kavit Corporation, Income Tax Officer, बनामVs C/O. Subhashbhai Patel, Ward-1(2)(3), . 12, Vitthal Nagar Society, Vadodara. Opposite, Mental Hospital, Karelbaug, Vadodara-390018. Pan: Aalfk8619A

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

properties. The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The AO had made the addition of Rs.70,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in one land for the reason that he had information about one land transaction only and no compliance was made by the assessee

PINKAL SURESHKUMAR KOTHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1303/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 250(2)

house to be Rs 3,60,000 out of salary income and Rs. 2,79,000 (Stamp Duty) out of Cash on hand balance However, Ld. CIT (A) erroneously comprehended our submission to mean that appellant is trying to prove entire source from cash balance. However, Appellant had clearly mentioned that "So, the amount of cash deposited and used

RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEP INFRAPROJECTS LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1561/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1561/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Deep Infraprojects Llp 10Th Floorhouse, Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfd3530J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arvind Kumar, Cit. Dr 22/01/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 05.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Purchased A Land Situated At Ambli Road, Ahmedabad During The Year For A Consideration Of Rs.75 Crore, As Per The Executed Sale Deed. In The Course Of Search Conducted At The Residential Premises Of One Shri Divyang Vyas, Certain Documents Were Found, As Per Which It Transpired That Certain On-Money Was Paid In The Purchase Transaction Of This Land. In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri DhrunalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT. DR
Section 69B

House, Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAQFD3530J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT. DR 22/01/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

PRASHANT CHANDULAL PARIKH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 369/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

house on the said land has not been established. The disallowance as made by the AO in respect of deduction u/s 54F claimed by the assessee is, therefore, confirmed. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 as taken by the assessee is rejected. 14. The next ground pertains to date of acquisition of the new property. The contention of the assessee that investment

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1136/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(3)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

unexplained investment in house property. Vide appellate order dated 17.12.2018, the addition of Rs.51,60,000/- was confirmed whereas the addition

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. PAN : ACYFS 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, AR Assessee by : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee

ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 343/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

property is amounting to Rs.1,73,25,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.84,93,235/- was paid from housing loan taken by the Appellant and balance amount of Rs.88,31,765/- was paid through the remittances into the Appellant's NRE account made from his own overseas bank account. Thus, the said investment cannot be treated as unexplained