Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

75 results for “house property”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi348 Mumbai262 Jaipur169 Bangalore131 Chennai81 Chandigarh75 Hyderabad68 Cochin67 Ahmedabad52 Amritsar44 Pune42 Indore40 Agra38 Surat27 Lucknow24 Rajkot19 Visakhapatnam13 Nagpur12 Jodhpur12 Raipur12 Kolkata11 Patna10 Cuttack6 Guwahati5 Allahabad4 Varanasi4 SC3 Dehradun3 Rajasthan1 Telangana1 Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 69A55 Addition to Income54 Section 143(3)39 Section 153A33 Section 143(2)32 Section 6932 Section 14827 Section 12727 Section 6826 Survey u/s 133A

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

17

Business Income14

Deemed Dividend14

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

sections 69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

sections 69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits

MRS. KIRAN BALA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

M/S VEER ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 133Section 263

House Property" and Rs. 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala 6 10,76,719/- under the head "Income from Other Sources." It is submitted that a survey action was conducted at the professional premises of the assessee on 26.09.2016. During the said survey, certain discrepancies were found and statement of the assessee was recorded. In the said statement

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

69A of the Income Tax Act is quoted as under for your kind reference:- 1. It is clear from the aforementioned submission that though there were two lenders as per the records, the total funds transferred were clearly belonging to Mr. Hardev Singh and a part of them were merely wired through his son's bank account. Therefore, in this

LEELA DUTT SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

House Property" and "Income from Other Sources" but provided no details regarding the cash deposits in question. 3.1 The Ld. AO decided that the cash deposits of Rs. 62,89,450/- in the assessee’s Canara Bank account were unexplained income 3 under Section 69A

M/S AMARJIT & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

M/S A.P. KNIT FAB,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That During The Course Of Survey, No Other Income Was Noticed By The Department And, As Such, Taxing The Amount Offered As Deemed Income, Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Failed To Appreciate That At The Time Of Survey, It Was Agreed That The Applicant Shall Pay The Taxes On The Amount Offered

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

SVETLANA GORODINSKAIA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CC, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 69A

house property, business/profession or capital gain will fall under the head income from other sources. Thus, it is inferred that the income, whose source is not known, identified or explained will not be covered under the head income from other sources. The assessee has claimed in the return of income that income of Rs. 4,07,000/- on account

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

section 54 since the assessee did not attend and comply with the show case notice issued by the AO on 26/12 for 28/12. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption of long term capital gain without providing