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.

6 results for “house property”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi813Mumbai758Karnataka494Bangalore322Jaipur135Kolkata106Hyderabad97Chennai86Ahmedabad80Pune74Chandigarh63Cochin61Calcutta51Telangana50Indore50Raipur49Surat38Lucknow37Patna27Agra19Cuttack19Nagpur18Guwahati17Amritsar11SC10Visakhapatnam9Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi6Rajasthan5Rajkot4Orissa3Ranchi3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A8Section 54B7Section 133(6)6Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Reassessment4Search & Seizure4Natural Justice4Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains

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
2
Deduction2

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

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

House, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249401 Uttarakhand-249401 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ASOPP3608B Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC

SAURABH AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 28/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

133(6), however, in response to such notices, no reply was received. The assessee’s case on the other hand had been that the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- had been received against the sale of property from these two entities. Since as per the AO, assessee could not file the details and discharge their onus, therefore, addition

RUKMAN AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

133(6), however, in response to such notices, no reply was received. The assessee’s case on the other hand had been that the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- had been received against the sale of property from these two entities. Since as per the AO, assessee could not file the details and discharge their onus, therefore, addition

SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 27/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

133(6), however, in response to such notices, no reply was received. The assessee’s case on the other hand had been that the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- had been received against the sale of property from these two entities. Since as per the AO, assessee could not file the details and discharge their onus, therefore, addition

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 29/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

133(6), however, in response to such notices, no reply was received. The assessee’s case on the other hand had been that the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- had been received against the sale of property from these two entities. Since as per the AO, assessee could not file the details and discharge their onus, therefore, addition