Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929 Mumbai878 Jaipur336 Chennai335 Hyderabad274 Bangalore264 Chandigarh161 Ahmedabad146 Pune142 Indore140 Cochin138 Kolkata100 Amritsar98 Visakhapatnam96 Rajkot69 Surat66 Nagpur64 Raipur47 Lucknow35 Calcutta34 Agra34 Guwahati32 Allahabad23 Cuttack23 Jodhpur18 Patna18 Karnataka10 Telangana8 Dehradun6 Panaji4 Jabalpur4 Varanasi4 SC4 Gauhati1 Punjab & Haryana1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income6 Section 1474 Section 143(3)4 Section 115B3 Section 54F3 Section 69A2 Section 1442 Unexplained Investment2 Undisclosed Income2 Natural Justice

ANU AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/DDN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 115BSection 61

unexplained investment in house property.” 3. The assessee is an individual and she derives income from sale and purchase of spices

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

2

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

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(1)

investment in NHAI Bond of INR 50 Lakhs and further claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act proportionately out of total cost of acquisition of new house property for INR 2,10,19,420/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act by holding that assessee is having more than

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. OM PRAKASH GUPTA, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 160/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Dcit, Vs Om Prakash Gupta, Central Circle, 19/A, Raj Vihar, Dehradun-2488001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipg9323M Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2023-24, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2025-26/1076723333(1) Dated 04.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Matta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

property. It needs to be highlighted here that Sh. Om Parkash Gupta is father of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Sh. Mayank and Sh. Yash are grandsons of Sh. Om Parkash Gupta. An agreement was signed between Xi Sh. Anurag Pundeer (owner of land) and Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Sh. Om Parkash Gupta on 12.11.2018 for development

SHRI GANGA RAM ADWANI,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, RISHIKESH

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1511/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Chatterjee, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

property had been confirmed by the seller relating to the direct transaction and not by a third party”. 2.5 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that, “the statements are taken as uncontroverted and in any case they are backed by corroborative evidence of the investment of the proceeds in purchase of land” is perverse

CHANDRA KANT GUPTA,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As Ay: 2017-18 To Whether The Learned Commissioner Of India Tax (Appeals)(Nfac)

Section 115BSection 69A

house belonging to the assessee and as such there is no 2 AY: 2017-18 burden of payment of rent. The assessee during his tenure in Government service was posted in various locations outside his home town. Accordingly, he had to maintain the dual establishments and also had to frequently withdraw cash from the bank account in which his salary