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.

15 results for “house property”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai141Delhi66Jaipur48Kolkata37Calcutta35Indore23Ahmedabad20Guwahati18Bangalore15Pune14Hyderabad7Chandigarh7Cuttack6Rajkot6Surat4Nagpur3Ranchi3Lucknow3Raipur2Amritsar2Chennai2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 6832Section 14818Section 10(38)17Section 69C12Addition to Income12Section 14711Capital Gains11Section 1449Reassessment9

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock operators by various income tax authorities. He only reiterated and relied upon his books of accounts and broker's notes & DEMAT account statements. Under, such circumstances, I am compelled to hold an opinion that, except the books of accounts, DEMAT statements & Broker's Notes, assessee is not having any other evidence/ document in his possessions, to disprove circumstantial

Reopening of Assessment9
Natural Justice9
Section 234D8

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock operators by various income tax authorities. He only reiterated and relied upon his books of accounts and broker's notes & DEMAT account statements. Under, such circumstances, I am compelled to hold an opinion that, except the books of accounts, DEMAT statements & Broker's Notes, assessee is not having any other evidence/ document in his possessions, to disprove circumstantial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock operators by various income tax authorities. He only reiterated and relied upon his books of accounts and broker's notes & DEMAT account statements. Under, such circumstances, I am compelled to hold an opinion that, except the books of accounts, DEMAT statements & Broker's Notes, assessee is not having any other evidence/ document in his possessions, to disprove circumstantial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock operators by various income tax authorities. He only reiterated and relied upon his books of accounts and broker's notes & DEMAT account statements. Under, such circumstances, I am compelled to hold an opinion that, except the books of accounts, DEMAT statements & Broker's Notes, assessee is not having any other evidence/ document in his possessions, to disprove circumstantial

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

Penny stock” made with Kolkata company. In support of our view, we are relying on the latest judgement of the hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs DCIT reported in [2025] 71 taxmann.com 729 [Delhi] dated 21.02.2025 in which it has been held as under:- “35. The Full Bench in Usha International

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

house property, profits 86 gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources. The long term capital gains of Rs. 2,58,45,625 is on account of gains earned on the sale of shares of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd. Investments. 3. Long term capital gains on account of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd is as under: Sale

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

house property, profits 86 gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources. The long term capital gains of Rs. 2,58,45,625 is on account of gains earned on the sale of shares of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd. Investments. 3. Long term capital gains on account of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd is as under: Sale

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

house property, profits 86 gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources. The long term capital gains of Rs. 2,58,45,625 is on account of gains earned on the sale of shares of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd. Investments. 3. Long term capital gains on account of PS IT Infrastructure Services Ltd is as under: Sale

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

House Property of Rs.35,41,250/-, Income from Business of Rs.24,00,000/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.78,85,727/- and Income from Other sources of Rs.98,23,674/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.80,97,954/- and dividend of Rs.56,34,559/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

House Property of Rs.35,41,250/-, Income from Business of Rs.24,00,000/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.78,85,727/- and Income from Other sources of Rs.98,23,674/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.80,97,954/- and dividend of Rs.56,34,559/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

SMT RESHMA GULAB JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Reshma Gulab Jain, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sri Krishna Madhav Ward – 5(3)(2), Residency, Bengaluru. No.21/3, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Ajtpj9834 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

house property and income from other sources. The assessee has filed her return of income for Assessment Year Page 3 of 7 2014-15 on 19.12.2014 declaring total income of Rs.8,53,883/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued. In response

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 147Section 68

house property, capital gain and other sources. She filed return of income on 10 January 2018 declaring total taxable income of Rs.1,17,85,570/–. In the return of income the assessee has disclosed short-term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to ₹ 8,792,715. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return on 6 June 2018 declaring

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

house property, capital gains and business income. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 18.09.2015. The assessee’s AR attended hearing on 30.12.2016 and 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan produced the books of accounts and other details. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessment

SRI. RANJEETH KUMAR BOTHRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1569/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Rohit Gowthamchand, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 10(38)Section 112Section 129Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

house property, capital gains and other sources. The assessee had filed his Return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 16.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.13,72,420 and an exempted income (Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Shares U/s 10(38) of the Act, 1961 ) of Rs.15,77,000 and PPF Interest

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAAFT6690D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Kincha, CA : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT - Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order dated