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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi278Mumbai184Jaipur142Bangalore109Chandigarh66Hyderabad65Cochin65Chennai63Ahmedabad45Amritsar44Indore40Agra37Pune35Surat25Lucknow24Rajkot17Visakhapatnam13Jodhpur12Raipur12Nagpur12Patna10Kolkata8Cuttack5Guwahati4SC3Allahabad3Varanasi2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 69A11Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3House Property3Cash Deposit3Demonetization3Section 1482Section 2502

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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 of the appellant to taxed. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 7.3.1 The fundamental question involved is that whether or not the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,71,85,500/- under section 69A

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: Disposed
ITAT Guwahati
16 Oct 2025
AY 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 of ₹37,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that while the assessee received his rental income through banking channels, he had deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/GTY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

69A arising out of dealing in bogus penny stock. 2 Satinder Singh, AY: 2016-17 3. From the order sheet entries, we not that no one has represented the assessee before the Tribunal in the past as well as today except for one day where the assessee himself appeared and sought adjournment. 4. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR contended that

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