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.

7 results for “house property”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,313Delhi1,181Jaipur359Bangalore340Ahmedabad322Karnataka316Chennai262Hyderabad206Chandigarh190Kolkata159Pune154Indore112Cochin57Raipur55Visakhapatnam50Lucknow48Nagpur44Surat42Rajkot34Calcutta34Telangana33SC33Cuttack32Amritsar27Agra19Patna15Guwahati8Varanasi7Dehradun7Rajasthan7Jodhpur6Allahabad5Ranchi4Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)9Section 153A8Section 132(4)8Section 1325Penalty5Addition to Income5House Property5Section 271D4Section 54F3Section 144

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 991/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147
2
Section 153A
Section 217(1)(c)
Section 54F

property and not with reference to the immediate source of the money for its acquisition besides proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act are aimed at making de novo assessments and are not akin to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act to charge to tax only income escaping assessment in the original proceedings. You may therefore issue the refund claimed

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

penalty u/s 271D of the Act in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. The following facts are not in dispute:- a) The Assessee purchased a house property

RAJU VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7797/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Juneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for nine assessment years, viz., 1998-99 and 2004-05 to 2011- 12. However, presently, we are concerned with assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual deriving income from salary, house property

RISHI BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4845/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

house property and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 in M/s Ganga Realtors Group of cases. The assessee filed return of income on 10.07.2014 declaring income of Rs.4,72,526/-and the assessment u/s 153A was completed on 01.09.2014. Surrendered amount

RISHI BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4846/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

house property and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 in M/s Ganga Realtors Group of cases. The assessee filed return of income on 10.07.2014 declaring income of Rs.4,72,526/-and the assessment u/s 153A was completed on 01.09.2014. Surrendered amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

House, Old RTO Road, Bhilwara (Rajasthan), PAN : AAPCS5792P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR Respondent by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate Date of hearing: 24.11.2021 Date of order : 14.12.2021 ORDER PER V.P. RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A) dated 27.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 arising from the assessment order passed

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)

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 this amount. Further, he made addition out of low house hold withdrawal and non disclosure of interest