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”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,330Delhi1,190Bangalore366Karnataka322Jaipur293Chennai271Ahmedabad204Hyderabad173Kolkata167Chandigarh150Pune108Indore63Raipur49Lucknow42Calcutta34SC33Telangana33Surat30Nagpur28Rajkot23Visakhapatnam19Agra18Patna16Cuttack15Cochin13Amritsar11Guwahati8Rajasthan7Jodhpur4Allahabad4Dehradun3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji3Orissa2Varanasi2Ranchi2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Section 271D4Penalty3Section 153A2Addition to Income2House Property2

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

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