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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,603Mumbai1,410Bangalore602Karnataka575Jaipur332Chennai297Hyderabad230Kolkata197Ahmedabad180Chandigarh149Pune98Cochin97Indore87Telangana82Raipur64Calcutta54Lucknow47Nagpur46Rajkot36Amritsar31Visakhapatnam27Surat26Guwahati25Cuttack22SC21Agra18Patna11Jodhpur11Allahabad10Rajasthan7Orissa3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Gauhati1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 2639Section 143(3)2

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)

69,411/- against the sale of property named, “House 184.80 Sq mtr” in the ITR filed by her for the A.Y. 2016-17. However, as per insight/TDS details on record, the correct 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi sale consideration of property was Rs.63,21,000/-. Hence, there was a difference of Rs.20,51,589/- and such income

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

69,383 against Rs. 19,53,664 shown by the appellant without appreciating that it is settled law that fair market value of the area should be taken as cost of acquisition as various factors like location, area, size, infrastructure facilities around the area, potential future development have to be taken into consideration and the value was taken