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.

30 results for “house property”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,846Mumbai1,707Bangalore697Karnataka604Chennai378Ahmedabad360Jaipur359Hyderabad323Kolkata282Pune200Chandigarh181Indore171Cochin163Surat121Telangana114Visakhapatnam109Amritsar85Raipur74Calcutta56Nagpur48Lucknow46Cuttack44Rajkot41SC37Agra35Guwahati30Patna26Jodhpur19Kerala11Varanasi9Rajasthan7Allahabad6Ranchi5Panaji4Orissa4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Section 143(3)9Section 2506Section 44A5Depreciation5Disallowance5Section 153C4Section 1473Section 1313

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 89/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd. 2014-15 24.09.2014 Nil 28,91,87,935 16,79,15,802 Nil 2015-16 22.09.2015 Nil 6,99,57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd. 2014-15 24.09.2014 Nil 28,91,87,935 16,79,15,802 Nil 2015-16 22.09.2015 Nil 6,99,57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

Deduction3
Unexplained Investment3
Section 1482

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd. 2014-15 24.09.2014 Nil 28,91,87,935 16,79,15,802 Nil 2015-16 22.09.2015 Nil 6,99,57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI RATAN SHARMA , GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 72/GTY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 131Section 143(3)

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

SHRI RATAN SHARMA ,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 98/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 131Section 143(3)

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI RATAN SHARMA , GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 71/GTY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 131Section 143(3)

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

AFSANA BEGUM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 113/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

property situated at C-97, South Extension Part-Il, New Delhi jointly with her husband Sri. S.K. Datta for a consideration of ₹13,00,00,000/- (assessee’s investment share being 50% of the consideration). The assessee had submitted that the sources for the investment was out of housing loan availed from SBI jointly with her husband for an amount

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 38. The present appeals concern AYs 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, on the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person

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

48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under a misconception by confronting huge details tabulated by the Department. Those statements have been retracted by the concerned person