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.

149 results for “house property”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,345 Mumbai1,018 Jaipur440 Bangalore414 Chennai323 Hyderabad253 Chandigarh157 Kolkata151 Cochin149 Indore141 Ahmedabad132 Pune116 Visakhapatnam114 Rajkot79 Amritsar66 Surat60 Nagpur46 Raipur45 Agra39 Calcutta35 Lucknow34 Patna32 Guwahati31 Jodhpur30 Karnataka24 Cuttack22 Allahabad20 Dehradun13 Varanasi8 Telangana7 SC7 Jabalpur3 Ranchi2 Punjab & Haryana2 Kerala1 Andhra Pradesh1 Rajasthan1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 25061 Addition to Income48 Section 153C40 Section 143(3)34 Section 37(1)26 Section 153A21 Section 13220 Section 26318 Disallowance12

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...

Unexplained Investment9

Section 2(24)(vi)8

Undisclosed Income8

For Respondent:

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

House, Central Circle-1, Mekkadambu – P.O. Ernakulam. Muvattupuzha. PAN:AAFPE 4655 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri T. M. Sreedharan Respondent by Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 04/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dated 31/03/2016

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

house in the said gifted property with assistance from Ismail Sait and utilizing own funds. The landed property was attached by TRO on 10/02/2005 in connection with recovery of tax arrears of the present assessee, Shri Essa Ismail Sait. In the letter written by Smt. Farhana Sait to ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ooty dated 15/12/2004, it was stated that

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and the same is added to the income of the assessee. 4.2 Further,the AO on perusal of Return and computation of Income, found that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,53,59,677/- u/s 80P of the Act. The whole amount had been claimed with respect to the income

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and the same is added to the income of the assessee. 4.2 Further,the AO on perusal of Return and computation of Income, found that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,53,59,677/- u/s 80P of the Act. The whole amount had been claimed with respect to the income

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

House Property” instead of setting off the same against the income added under section 69 of the Act by placing reliance upon the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that the amendment, whereby the set-off of any loss is denied against the income, inter-alia, referred to in section

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

undisclosed income @ 30% u/s. 115BBE. The PCIT observed that in respect of the above, the Assessing Officer had neither made any finding nor obtained any supporting documents from the assessee while allowing. Thus, the PCIT observed that no requisite disallowance/verification had been made by her while completing the assessment. Accordingly, the PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous