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 191clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka454Delhi392Mumbai324Bangalore191Hyderabad74Jaipur48Chennai48Indore38Raipur32Kolkata27Lucknow20Calcutta18Surat17Pune17Chandigarh16Telangana15Ahmedabad14SC8Nagpur7Patna7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Rajasthan4Panaji3Allahabad3Rajkot3Amritsar3Cochin1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1Ranchi1Dehradun1Cuttack1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 13(3)24Section 153A13Section 58Exemption8Section 1327Section 143(3)6Section 1486Section 576Addition to Income6

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances and deposits in the bank accounts. From the facts of the case, it is observed that the AO has recorded her satisfaction that income of Rs. 36,10,58,438/- has escaped assessment on account of bogus expenses claimed in the names of fictitious sub contractors

Section 2535
Limitation/Time-bar4
Deduction2

JAGMOHAN KAUR BAJWA LEGAL HEIR OF LT.JASKIRAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

houses some renovation, if required was carried out and then the same was sold off. It was stated that the deceased assessee received a sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- from Shri Hardev Singh, his maternal uncle who had been in the Government service and after his retirement, he was settled in Canada where his son Shri Maninder Singh Sahi

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 21/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 57

Properties arid vancnA other personal Unsecured Loans It is a landmark principle that money has no colour and entire money of the Assessee, coming from any source, comes m a common kitty. It should De the discretion of the Assessee that where he had applied his sources The above Investment in M/s Rahul Sales is his personal Investment, whereas

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

191 24,16,00 0 5,000 J.R. Sardana, Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Total Salary Paid 85,15,744/- 1,06,03,045/- 1,43,37,083/- 3,34,55,872/- Interest Paid 26,25,955/- 13,69,588/- 16,27,668/- 56,23,211/- Rent

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

section 36(l)(iii)." Further, in the case of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. quoted above, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that: - "Once it is borne out from the records that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on the other hand, certain amounts had been advanced

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nviii)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names