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 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,575Mumbai1,357Karnataka584Bangalore573Jaipur339Ahmedabad315Chennai304Hyderabad223Kolkata188Pune142Cochin135Chandigarh131Indore126Telangana119Surat84Raipur65Visakhapatnam65Lucknow55Calcutta54Amritsar41Rajkot36Cuttack36SC31Agra27Nagpur27Jodhpur13Guwahati9Dehradun8Rajasthan7Allahabad6Orissa5Varanasi5Patna4Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Kerala2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153A12Section 132(4)8Addition to Income6Section 43B4Section 1324Section 143(3)4Section 133(6)4Reassessment4Search & Seizure

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 Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 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

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 Dehradun
4
Natural Justice4
Disallowance2
House Property2
21 Feb 2025
AY 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

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

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

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

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

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