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.

5 results for “house property”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,224Delhi1,213Bangalore430Jaipur285Hyderabad218Chennai201Ahmedabad174Chandigarh139Kolkata118Indore99Pune89Cochin88Rajkot75Raipur63Nagpur54Amritsar54Surat48SC45Visakhapatnam35Lucknow35Agra28Patna26Guwahati24Cuttack19Jodhpur10Jabalpur5Allahabad3Dehradun2Ranchi2Panaji1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26320Section 143(3)7Section 271D3Cash Deposit3Section 269S2Addition to Income2Natural Justice2Revision u/s 2632

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

House 184.80 Sq. mtrs” was Rs.63,21,000/-. Hence, there was a difference of Rs.20,51,589/- and since the order had been passed by the AO without conducting the necessary inquiry or verification on this issue, it was erroneous in so much as prejudicial to the Revenue in terms of clause (a) of Explanation—2 below section

MAHESHWARI MUKUND DAS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

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

ITA 27/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaheshwarimukunddas, Vs. Ito, Ward -2 1288, D B Vallbh Das Jabalpur Palace, Hanumantal, 2Nd Floor, Anxe Bldg, Jabalpur-482002, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhya Pradesh. Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe.Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

section 54F on the ground that appellant has not filed any details regarding construction of property whereas it was duly filed before both the authorities. 8. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee derives

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

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

ITA 7/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Jabalpur, Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, 291, Ramanth Building, Napier 01/32/33, Ashirwad Market, Town, Jabalpur-482001 Vs. Lordganj, Jabalpur-482001. Pan No. Achpa 7963 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Shiv Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)

section 68. In the inst 68. In the instant case also, there was sufficient cash balance ant case also, there was sufficient cash balance with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank account

KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 48/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. PAN:AABCK7797E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order Pr. CIT, Jabalpur passed under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

house. In normal course, the exigency in making cash payments for such expenses cannot be ruled out Where the explanation of the assessee that violation of provisions of s. 269SS was due to certain bona fide belief of the assessee is found to be acceptable, penalty under s 27D is untenable. [CIT vs. Saini Medical Store