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.

5 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,311Mumbai1,111Chennai425Bangalore368Jaipur343Hyderabad291Kolkata196Cochin192Chandigarh189Ahmedabad186Pune130Indore127Karnataka110Visakhapatnam109Amritsar78Surat58Lucknow56Nagpur45Raipur43Calcutta40Cuttack39Telangana37Rajkot34Guwahati31Agra29Ranchi12Jodhpur11Patna11SC10Allahabad10Varanasi8Rajasthan7Dehradun5Jabalpur5Kerala2Orissa1J&K1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 271D4Addition to Income4Section 543Section 1483Cash Deposit3House Property3Section 69A2Section 115B2Section 69

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

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

ITA 7145/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69

house property. Now the brief question is whether the assessee was granted a proper opportunity of hearing or not. Admittedly, in the case of the assessee 148 notice was issued on account of cash deposited

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

2
Penalty2
Natural Justice2

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

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

For Appellant: Sh. Romal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2Section 80D

house property income, 3 Gulshan Kumar business income from own business of civil construction work and share of profit from partnership firms, long term capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income on 03.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,92,880/-. Sale of Jewellery: 4. The cash flow statement of the assessee furnished during

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 Dehradun23 Nov 2023AY 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