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.

3 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,297Mumbai1,090Chennai395Bangalore378Jaipur304Hyderabad228Kolkata183Chandigarh141Karnataka132Ahmedabad107Cochin99Pune89Indore66Amritsar57Lucknow50Nagpur48Visakhapatnam44Calcutta40Telangana37Surat31Rajkot29Raipur29Guwahati27Agra26Cuttack18Patna10SC10Allahabad7Rajasthan7Jodhpur6Varanasi5Jabalpur5Dehradun3Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1J&K1Ranchi1Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 271D4Section 69A2Section 115B2Cash Deposit2Penalty2Addition to Income2

CHANDRA KANT GUPTA,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As Ay: 2017-18 To Whether The Learned Commissioner Of India Tax (Appeals)(Nfac)

Section 115BSection 69A

house belonging to the assessee and as such there is no 2 AY: 2017-18 burden of payment of rent. The assessee during his tenure in Government service was posted in various locations outside his home town. Accordingly, he had to maintain the dual establishments and also had to frequently withdraw cash from the bank account in which his salary

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun
23 Nov 2023
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 11,56,000/- and transaction related to immovable property amounting to Rs. 28,00,000/-.In response to the statutory notices, the Ld. Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The Assessing Officer finding that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 8,99,067/-, he added

SUSHILA BISHT,DEHRADUN vs. ADD. CIT RANGE-02, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3288/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Sushila Bisht, Vs. Addl Cit, Ajabpur Kalan, C-100, Shanti Range-02, Vihar, Phase-1, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajepb0822E

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sahani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parmod Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

deposited was in a joint count of both the Appellant and the husband of the Appellant, and as much there was no transaction of give and take in respect of the said sum 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty