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.

8 results for “house property”+ Section 36(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,339Mumbai2,182Bangalore830Karnataka629Chennai488Jaipur351Kolkata333Hyderabad303Ahmedabad296Chandigarh199Surat137Pune136Telangana127Indore117Cochin86Visakhapatnam79Raipur72Amritsar59Calcutta57Rajkot52SC50Nagpur48Lucknow41Cuttack36Agra31Guwahati25Patna16Rajasthan14Varanasi11Kerala10Jodhpur9Dehradun8Orissa8Allahabad8Jabalpur5Ranchi5Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A10Addition to Income6Natural Justice6Section 43B4Section 69C4Section 143(3)4Section 133(6)4Reassessment4Search & Seizure

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 96/DDN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 95/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun
4
Section 1322
Section 153A(1)(a)2
Section 1432
21 Feb 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

SH. DEEPAK MITTAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3973/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi]

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 69C

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) has been carried out in the business and residential premises of the Rama/Shakumbari group of cases of Moradabad on 22.09.2011 and as a part of this group, the residential and official premises of the Mittal family and its concerns which were part

DEEPAK MITTAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3972/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi]

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 69C

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) has been carried out in the business and residential premises of the Rama/Shakumbari group of cases of Moradabad on 22.09.2011 and as a part of this group, the residential and official premises of the Mittal family and its concerns which were part

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

properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the matter was remanded to the AO, the AO did not file any remand report. If the AO chooses not to file the remand report, then the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in rejecting the additional evidences simply

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

properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the matter was remanded to the AO, the AO did not file any remand report. If the AO chooses not to file the remand report, then the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in rejecting the additional evidences simply

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

properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the matter was remanded to the AO, the AO did not file any remand report. If the AO chooses not to file the remand report, then the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in rejecting the additional evidences simply

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

properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the matter was remanded to the AO, the AO did not file any remand report. If the AO chooses not to file the remand report, then the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in rejecting the additional evidences simply