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.

29 results for “house property”+ Section 74clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,374Mumbai1,166Karnataka553Bangalore505Ahmedabad308Jaipur281Chennai257Hyderabad218Kolkata188Surat165Chandigarh147Indore133Pune127Cochin110Telangana76Visakhapatnam63Raipur57Calcutta54Rajkot45Lucknow37Cuttack37Guwahati29Amritsar27Nagpur26SC21Agra11Varanasi7Jodhpur6Rajasthan6Patna6Dehradun4Kerala4Orissa4Allahabad1Panaji1J&K1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Section 143(3)9Section 2506Section 44A5Depreciation5Disallowance5Section 1314Deduction4Section 69C3Unexplained Investment

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]

74,12,820 2011-12 26.09.2011 8,18,21,656 3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity

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]

74,12,820 2011-12 26.09.2011 8,18,21,656 3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

3

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]

74,12,820 2011-12 26.09.2011 8,18,21,656 3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity

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

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 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA vs. M/S. BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 99/GTY/2000[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Dec 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble]

For Appellant: Smt. Harshita Jain on behalf of NituFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

house. Rather, it is with respect to transit flats given to the employees on transfers. The manufacturing activities of the assesse are such a place where it is difficult to find out any space to stay. The employees have to stay in the gardens where certain space is mandatory for the assessee to maintain. After considering the finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - DIMAPUR , DIMAPUR vs. M/S. UDIPTA ENERGY & EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 45/Gau/2017 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Udipta Energy & Equipment Tax, Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C/O Phukan Nagar, Sivasagar, Assam-785640 (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/ Assessee) (Ĥ×"ȡ"Ȣ- / Respondent) .. È"ȡ"Ȣलेखासं./Pan No. Aaacu5559K \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Rabindro Singh, Jcit Ĥ×""ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Uttam Kr. Borthakur, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Rabindro Singh, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Uttam Kr. Borthakur, Advocate
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 69C

74,220/-. The AO noticed that during the post search proceedings, a seized document marked as PS-22 (Pg. No. 9 to 20) showing Business Promotional expenses of Udipta Energy Equipment Pvt. Ltd, reflected an amount of Rs. 18,57,595/-, was not for the purpose of business. AO noted that Statement of Dhandev Mahanta (A/R of M/s UEEPL

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

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

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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

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

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. 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