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.

27 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai658Delhi595Supreme Court400Jaipur236Chennai215Hyderabad200Bangalore161Chandigarh120Cochin99Ahmedabad79Kolkata75Pune73Indore58Amritsar57Nagpur48Lucknow45Visakhapatnam44Surat31Raipur29Rajkot28Guwahati27Agra26Cuttack18Patna10Allahabad7Jodhpur6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Dehradun3Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 69A13Section 143(3)10Section 2509Addition to Income9Section 44A5Cash Deposit5Depreciation5Disallowance5Section 1474Section 148

SUBHASH CHAND CHORARIA,GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), with the primary issue being the unexplained cash deposit

RANEE NARAH ,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR -2 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

3
Demonetization3
House Property3
ITA 147/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) On The Basis Of Following Findings:

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

house property income (Rs. 9,30,000/-) and an amount of Rs. 1,71,85,500/- u/s 69A of the Act, on account of cash deposit

PANKAJ KUMAR,KARNAL vs. CIT (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 173/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Daljit Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

House No. 583, Ward 3, Dera Hasanpur Road Gharunda, District- Karnal PIN-132114 (Haryana) PAN: ARWPK9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Daljit Singh, FCA Department By: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT Date of Hearing: 21-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15 .10.2025 ORDER PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income

MR. PULAK CHAKRABORTY,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 39/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

property I paid Rs. 14,20,000/- from taking home loan from SBI Bank - Account No - 1078899786, ONGC Colony Branch and Rs. 7,00,000/- from HDFC Bank - Account No - 01861140002440, Total paid Rs. 21,20,000/- .But due to unavoidable circumstances I cancelled my "agreement for sale" on 23.12.2015 vide deed of cancellation / Agreement No - 20566 dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. SMT. INDU RANI JHA, SHILLONG

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Deposits u/s 69 of the IT Act. I.T.A. No. 298/GTY/2018 Smt. Indu Rani Jha 7. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting an addition of Rs.30,50,000/- as unexplained investment in Immovable property u/s 69 of the IT Act. 8. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. BATH AND SANITARY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 169/GTY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 68

house property was sold in 2001 and the payment for the same was received by draft and cheque in January/February 2001. This receipt was also about three and half years prior to the cash introduction of Rs. 6, 20, 000/- in the assessee firm. From this it can be seen that the assessee has failed to explain the immediate source

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 59/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 60/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. PRAMOD KUMAR BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 65/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where