Search: house property

7 results for “house property”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 143(3)12 Section 686 Addition to Income6 Cash Deposit5 Demonetization5 Section 2504 Section 115B4 Section 69A4 Section 1543 Section 2633 Section 692 House Property2

SANDEEP KUMAR MUNDRA ,BURHANPUR vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 314/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

demonetization period u/s 68 of the Act. Further addition of Rs.1,54,841/- was made on account of excess claim of loss on house property

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR JAIN ,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain Ito 3(5) बनाम Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Adhpj 6674 M Assessee By Shri A.G. Shastri, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

house- property and other sources. The assessee is neither minor nor having income from business. We further observe that the correct amount of cash-deposit during demonetization

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Dcit/Acit-2(1), Gupta, Bhopal B-72, Mansarovar, बनाम/ Shahpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaypg6045M Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 68

demonetization period. Consequently, we uphold the addition made by AO. 11. To sum up, the issue of capital contribution of Rs. 22,02,000/- and receipt of Rs. 4,99,998/- from M/s Supermax are remanded back to AO for Page 10 of 15 Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Bhopal ITA No. 498/Ind/2023 – AY 2017-18 adjudication afresh. The additions

THE DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI ASHISH NIGAM, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit Central-1 Ashish Nigam Indore 15, Bada Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Ablpn6361M Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

Section 132Section 44ASection 69

property transaction which, by its very nature, are received early and on completion of such transaction? c) It amounts to accepting an untenable position that a huge cash amount was kept by assessee as idle while various bank transactions were carried out during the period for more than three years and cash was deposited during demonetization period only

SUDHA LUHADIA,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE ITO - 4(5), INDORE, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the impugned order is upheld

ITA 546/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisudha Luhadia, Indore The Ito-4(5), बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Indore Vs. Associates, 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Mp) (Pan: Abapl5445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 253Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

house property. Basis page 7 it was submitted that income from stitching was Rs.203550, income from embroidery was Rs.1,55,500/- and income from pressing was Rs.90950, the aggregates of which comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- (credit not given). It Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 was submitted that the ROI was filed late. In respect of income from rent is concerned

NEMICHAND JAIN,KALANI NAGAR, INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 452/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2017-18 Nemichand Jain Ito 4(1) 2, Airport Road, Indore बनाम/ Kalani Nagar Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj8164A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

demonetization period even when it was explained by the appellant that amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in Punjab National Bank and Rs.5,46,000/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. was deposited in the Joint Accounts of appellant with her wife out of their past years savings and Rs 2,20,000/- was deposited in Bank of Baroda even when the said

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

demonetization. The assessee has contended that similar deposits were made in the earlier years also before the undersigned. However, no such details of earlier years were furnished by the assessee nor were called by the AO. Most notably, it is seen that during the course of assessment proceeding, the AO had called for all the bank statements of the assessee