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 245D(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad44Mumbai27Kolkata13Delhi11Bangalore6Chandigarh5Jaipur4Chennai4Pune3Lucknow2Indore2SC2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 142(1)4Section 1324Section 139(1)4Addition to Income4Section 683Section 153A3Section 132(4)2Section 132(1)2

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

245D(1) of the Act,\ndespite the exhibits not being seized from the possession of the Appellant\n(but seized from the partners of the Appellant and Sh.TCJ) and belonging\nto a third party i.e. RT Industries.\n17. That the Ld.AO again ignored the fact that Sh.TCJ was not a partner in the\nAppellant Firm, therefore, an unrelated third party

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

House Property2
Search & Seizure2
Survey u/s 133A2
ITA 339/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT(V.H)
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

property has been found as a consequence\nof the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement\nof assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the\ncontext of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing\nincriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 68

245D(4) of the I.T. Act,\nconsidering the brokerage rate 1.2% per annum (i.e. 0.1% of the\nloan). Since the department accepted this rate for the transaction\nbetween the known and unknown person hence brokerage rate\nwas considered\n0.10 paisa per hundred in each transaction of\nthe assessee which has found not to be recorded in his regular\nbooks

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 68

property, Business and Other sources. The assessee is a\nfinance broker and earned brokerage income in his proprietary\nconcern M/s Vihan Associates. Statutory notice as required u/s.\n143(2) of the Act and notice u/s 142(1) were also issued to the\nassessee and information and details pertaining to the case\nrelevant to assessment of his income were called