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.

186 results for “house property”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,863Mumbai1,488Bangalore749Karnataka677Chennai389Jaipur346Ahmedabad237Kolkata226Hyderabad223Chandigarh186Telangana152Pune143Cochin93Indore89Raipur76Surat76Rajkot69Lucknow68Amritsar68Calcutta61Nagpur47Visakhapatnam42Cuttack42Patna41SC32Agra28Guwahati25Jodhpur25Rajasthan16Allahabad14Varanasi12Dehradun12Jabalpur11Kerala9Orissa6Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Addition to Income37Section 26336Section 143(2)35Section 14827Section 153A25Section 69A22Section 14716Section 127

KANDHARI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Thus Untenable.”

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24ASection 24B

Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 39,23,316/- made on account of notional rent in respect of property no. 13, Lajpat Nagar-IV, Ring Road, New Delhi which is not chargeable

Showing 1–20 of 186 · Page 1 of 10

...
16
Penalty16
Natural Justice15
Exemption14

M/S FORTUNE METALIKS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. VS Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCF3202D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna, Addl. CIT तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 VIRTUAL HEARING आदेश आदेश/ORDER

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

property and deduction u/s 57 of the Act were duly called for by the AO and the assessees ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 26 made due compliance in this regard too. It is also not the case of the Department that the assessees did not discharge their onus before

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 142/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

property and deduction u/s 57 of the Act were duly called for by the AO and the assessees ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 26 made due compliance in this regard too. It is also not the case of the Department that the assessees did not discharge their onus before

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 140/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

property and deduction u/s 57 of the Act were duly called for by the AO and the assessees ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 26 made due compliance in this regard too. It is also not the case of the Department that the assessees did not discharge their onus before

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

ITA 396/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

property which is necessary for the attainment of object of society.\nIn this regard it is submitted that Hon'ble CIT(A) allowed this ground of appeal for\nstatistical purpose for the reason that assessee submitted documents which were\nnot filed with Ld. AO.\nSir, it is incorrect that assessee did not file documents with Ld. AO. In order

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

ITA 820/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mapreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

property as a result of which assessed the income at Rs. 53,55,786/-. 12. The following were grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A): 1. That the learned AO has erred in law and facts in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 48,70,000/- as business income of the assessee. 2. That the learned AO has erred

KULWANT KAUR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

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

ITA 181/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Komal Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 271

natural justice. 3. The sold property is not a capital asset and obtained amount is not a taxable under the Income Tax Act 196 Lit may kindly be considered and the addition may kindly be deleted. 3. The facts of the case, as available from the record are that the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.45

KULWANT KAUR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

ITA 182/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Komal Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 271

natural justice. 3. The sold property is not a capital asset and obtained amount is not a taxable under the Income Tax Act 196 Lit may kindly be considered and the addition may kindly be deleted. 3. The facts of the case, as available from the record are that the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.45

ADITI AGGARWAL,AMBALA CANTT vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

natural justice while passing the order u/s 263 dated 19-03-2021. 3. That Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the revisionary power of the Ld. Pr. CIT exercised under section

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

house bearing No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Joginder Kaur on 03.04.1987. The assessee got 100% share of this property from his mother on 24.06.2010. He has sold the property for a total consideration of Rs.3,88,00,000/- during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the dispute relates to correct

M/S Y.D.SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Dec 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

House No. 2133, Ward-4 (5), Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABFY0386N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 01.12.2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

ITO, W-4(2), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SWARAN FASTNERS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 729/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Feb 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(1)

house, Bury Street. London as per photocopy of the document attached. Your honor will find that all the transaction had been done from London by Sh. Puneet Gupta who is Son of Smt. SwaranKanta Jain and brother of Sh. Ankush Gupta. The above amounts have been transferred by Sh. Puneet Gupta in his savings account being maintained with CITI Bank

SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

ITA 455/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

natural justice and the report was duly confronted to the assessee and opportunity was granted to the assessee to offer his explanation with supporting documentary evidences. The legal objection of the assessee was thus rejected by Ld. AO. Further, DVO had taken into account all the information and records as provided by the assessee. The method adopted

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

natural justice and the report was duly confronted to the assessee and opportunity was granted to the assessee to offer his explanation with supporting documentary evidences. The legal objection of the assessee was thus rejected by Ld. AO. Further, DVO had taken into account all the information and records as provided by the assessee. The method adopted

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

natural justice and the report was duly confronted to the assessee and opportunity was granted to the assessee to offer his explanation with supporting documentary evidences. The legal objection of the assessee was thus rejected by Ld. AO. Further, DVO had taken into account all the information and records as provided by the assessee. The method adopted

RISHU GARG S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR GARG,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ITA 417/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

For Appellant: Ms. Vineet Thakral, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

House No. 1491, Sector – 4 Panchkula Haryana - 134112 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGPPG1912N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Vineet Thakral, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/03/2026 आदेश/Order