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.

935 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi935Mumbai897Chennai350Jaipur296Bangalore281Hyderabad214Chandigarh134Ahmedabad117Cochin104Kolkata102Indore86Pune86Amritsar81Nagpur69Rajkot63Surat59Visakhapatnam46Raipur40Calcutta34Lucknow29Guwahati28Agra27Patna17Cuttack13Jodhpur13Allahabad11Karnataka10Telangana8Jabalpur4Panaji4SC4Varanasi4Dehradun3H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A137Addition to Income87Section 26360Section 6852Section 143(3)44Section 13231Search & Seizure25Section 69A22Section 14720

SHRI KEWAL LAKHERA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

ITA 712/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Senior DR
Section 68Section 69A

property before the AO. Therefore, the AO has made addition on this account of unexplained investment. During the appellate proceedings, it has been explained by the AR that the appellant has taken a bank loan of Rs.18,43,000/- from P.N.B. Housing

SH. VIKAS LOHIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2210/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 935 · Page 1 of 47

...
House Property19
Natural Justice18
Section 69C17
19 Aug 2016
AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Vikas Lohia, F-351, Gali Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shiv Mandir Bandh Rd., 24(3), New Delhi Aya Nagar, New Delhi Pan : Acjpl3468N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Rakesh Kumar & T.C. Sachdeva, Advocates Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 11/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2008-09, Raising The Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 600000/- In Respect Of Cash Deposited In The Bank By The Appellant Inspite Of Furnishing Of Full Details/Explanation & Cash Flow Account Etc. Without Appreciating The Full Facts Of The Case.

Section 144

investment of Rs. 19 lacs in construction of house property stand explained and the withdrawal of Rs. 6.5 lakh from 16/04/2007 to 27/10/2007 are available with the assessee to explain the cash deposit of Rs. 6 lakh in bank account on 19/11/2007. Thus, in our view, no addition for unexplained

PREETI ELHENCE,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7402/DEL/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153A

investment in house property. The AO has observed from the perusal of the details of account that no amount has been credited from the bank for the construction purpose, hence the same stands unexplained

PREETI ELHENCE,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7403/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153A

investment in house property. The AO has observed from the perusal of the details of account that no amount has been credited from the bank for the construction purpose, hence the same stands unexplained

JAI PRAKASH VIRMANI,FARIDABAD vs. DC ACIT CENT FARIDABAD 2 NEW, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4764/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljai Prakash Virmani, Dcit/Acit, Shop No.7, Sector 58, Central Circle, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Vs. Faridabad. Pan-Ahrpp4614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.K. Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 04.09.2024 In Appeal No.10863/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Asst. Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Survey U/S 133A Was Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 23.01.2019. During The Course Of Survey Certain Loos Papers Were Found & Impounded Having Entries Of Cash Withdrawals & The Undisclosed Expenditure On Constructions Of House, Besides Other Documents Were Also Found Jai Prakash Virmani Vs. Dcit /Acit & Impounded. Based On These Entries Assessee Had Offered Additional Income In The Statements Recorded During The Course Of Survey Of Rs.1,28,34,958/-. Thereafter, Vide Letter Dated 20.01.2020, The Assessee Retracted Partly From The Additional Income So Offered During The Survey. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Wherein The Ao Observed That Income Offered By The Assessee Towards Unexplained Investment In The Construction Of House Is Taxable U/S 69 Of The Act. The Ao Further Observed That The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Are Applicable On The Income Of Rs.17,66,380/- Offered By The Assessee On Account Of Undisclosed Investment In Constructions House.

Section 115BSection 133ASection 234BSection 250Section 69

investment in construction of house property as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and invocation of provisions of section

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3749/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,89,60,17,693/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3745/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,89,60,17,693/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3746/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,89,60,17,693/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3747/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,89,60,17,693/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 399/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

house hold expenses. iii) Addition of Rs. 3,70,121/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2011, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 01.11.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

SMT. SHALINI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 466/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

house hold expenses. iii) Addition of Rs. 3,70,121/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2011, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 01.11.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 398/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

house hold expenses. iii) Addition of Rs. 3,70,121/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2011, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 01.11.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

SMT. SHALINI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 465/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

house hold expenses. iii) Addition of Rs. 3,70,121/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2011, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 01.11.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in house property, unexplained investment (is submitted to be fair Ld. AO has not made the additions of Rs.6

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 875/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in house property, unexplained investment (is submitted to be fair Ld. AO has not made the additions of Rs.6

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in house property, unexplained investment (is submitted to be fair Ld. AO has not made the additions of Rs.6

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in house property, unexplained investment (is submitted to be fair Ld. AO has not made the additions of Rs.6

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in house property, unexplained investment (is submitted to be fair Ld. AO has not made the additions of Rs.6

ITO WARD - 4, ROHTAK vs. SURENDER DALAL, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

unexplained investment in construction of house property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the addition has been

SURENDER DALAL,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - 4, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7490/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

unexplained investment in construction of house property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the addition has been