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.

16 results for “house property”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur153Mumbai107Delhi81Chandigarh69Bangalore55Hyderabad27Pune22Ahmedabad21Cochin21Indore21Agra19Rajkot18Amritsar16Chennai13Surat9Raipur9Cuttack5Varanasi5SC3Dehradun3Allahabad3Jodhpur2Visakhapatnam2Nagpur1Kolkata1Lucknow1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 26321Addition to Income13Section 69A12Section 13210Section 143(3)10Section 699Search & Seizure8Section 115B7Section 133A6

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B

Section 2506
Survey u/s 133A5
Business Income4

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 557/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

property for the purpose of section 53A of 1882 Act is registered, it shall not have effect for purposes of section 53A of the 1882 Act. (Para 21]" The jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has clearly upheld the view that the registered document shall carry the legal backing rather than an unregistered photocopy of the document. Further

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 542/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

69B of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of Id. CIT(A) is held to be infirm and perverse and as such, the addition is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” The Ld. Tribunal Bench in the case of Sharp Chucks & Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

ITA 702/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133A

section 71 of the Act, the losses can be set off against business income only , needful was not done, hence the income disclose during the survey for the cost incurred for development appellate is required to be treated as investment made outside the books of account and is required to be held as income from any other sources. Hence

SMT. KAMAL GANDHI,NAWANSHEHAR vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 458/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Bhagat & Rajinder Kumar ChopraFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

house. Further, in this regard, we may clarify; the ld. counsel during hearing contending that Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), alluded to by the ld. CIT(A), is not applicable as the search was after 31.05.2007, and even as observed during hearing, that would be wholly inconsequential as Explanation 5A, a pari materia provision, applicable to searches after

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 90/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 88/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 51/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 53/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 89/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 87/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

69B was based upon mere presumption without bringing any evidence in support. I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2014-15 I.T.A. No.53/Asr/2020: A.Y.: 2016-17 The submissions of the AR have been carefully considered. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the assessee has been found during the course of search. Neither any evidence has been collected and brought on record

GEETA VASHISTHA,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), FEROZEPUR

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

ITA 38/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69B

69B of the Act. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assessee and her spouse i.e. Dr. UR Vashishtha were having sufficient cash available Rs.15 lakhs at the time of purchase of the immovable property. Thereafter, the AO reproduced the written submission of the assessee. 3.2. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO concluded that the assessee