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.

264 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929Mumbai878Jaipur336Chennai335Hyderabad274Bangalore264Chandigarh161Ahmedabad146Pune142Indore140Cochin138Kolkata100Amritsar98Visakhapatnam96Rajkot69Surat66Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow35Calcutta34Agra34Guwahati32Allahabad23Cuttack23Jodhpur18Patna18Karnataka10Telangana8Dehradun6Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4SC4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 153A103Addition to Income83Section 153C56Section 13252Section 6944Section 6835Section 5428Unexplained Investment27House Property25Section 69B

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

unexplained investment made by the assessee in two residential house properties on 24.05.2010. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that as per AIR information

Showing 1–20 of 264 · Page 1 of 14

...
24
Section 132(4)23
Undisclosed Income23

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

ITA 309/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 234Section 24Section 45Section 54F

invest in new residential property. On the other hand, the assessee has purchased some non-agricultural land and making a plea that assessee was not able to construct new house in the said non-agricultural land due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. First of all, the said non-agricultural land cannot be said that property meant

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

house property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

unexplained investment. Here, the evidence on record shows that the sum of ₹ 53,43,800/- was not an investment by the assessee but by his father. The Department, if not satisfied with the father’s explanation, ought to have made suitable proceedings in the father’s case. Fastening the liability on the assessee merely because the property

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

unexplained investment. Here, the evidence on record shows that the sum of ₹ 53,43,800/- was not an investment by the assessee but by his father. The Department, if not satisfied with the father’s explanation, ought to have made suitable proceedings in the father’s case. Fastening the liability on the assessee merely because the property

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 23(1)(c)Section 50C

unexplained investment in the house property, no addition can be justified. Learned first appellate authority has appreciated the facts and circumstances

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. GUNDUR,HUBBALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1200/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

house property. ITA Nos.1198 to 1200/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The CIT also noticed that the DVO in his report had valued the property at Rs.78,82,000/- as against the book value of Rs.52,14,444/-. There was thus a difference of Rs.26,67,556/- which had to be brought to tax as unexplained investment

SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. GUNDUR,HUBBALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1199/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

house property. ITA Nos.1198 to 1200/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The CIT also noticed that the DVO in his report had valued the property at Rs.78,82,000/- as against the book value of Rs.52,14,444/-. There was thus a difference of Rs.26,67,556/- which had to be brought to tax as unexplained investment