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.

21 results for “house property”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore27Jaipur21Mumbai21Karnataka21Ahmedabad18Delhi9Visakhapatnam9Chennai8Cochin7Amritsar6Cuttack6Pune5Hyderabad4Kolkata2Guwahati2Surat2SC1Nagpur1Varanasi1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)39Section 153A36Section 271D15Penalty15Section 269S14Section 139(1)13Addition to Income13Section 271A11House Property11

SMT. MEERA DEVI KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Sanghi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

property used for residence purpose of all of her family members. There 4 Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat, Jaipur Vs. JCIT, Jaipur is no beneficial interest of only one person. It was prosperity of family and transaction did not involve any interest element, and there was no promise to return amount with or without interest. Hence, the provisions of section 269SS

GAYTRI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 1479
Section 143(3)8
Search & Seizure8
ITA 118/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Authority & No Fact Had Been Concealed By The Assessee. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby The Property Being Used For Residential Purpose Only. 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Even If Assessee Is Not Required To Maintained Books Of Accounts As Per U/S 44Aa Read With Rule 6F Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby Mistake In Claiming Of Deduction Under Wrong Provision Of Law Was Bona-Fide Mistake.”

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Singh (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54Section 54F

Section 273B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction U/s 54 despite the fact that the property sold by the assessee is a shop and not a residential house

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

House Property and Income from Other Sources. That during the year under consideration the appellant sold a capital asset (piece of land) for Rs. 1,29,00,788/- (which was purchased in the year 2006) and shown Income from capital gain of Rs. 19,075/- (after reducing indexed cost of purchase & improvement exp. and after claiming exemption

KANHAIYA LAL LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

property could have been below taxable limit. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 categorically mentions that penalty u/s 271F is not leviable in case the assesee proves that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income during the year under consideration, as per provisions

SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

house property and other sources. The assessee is partner in the partnership firm and also director in various companies. There was a search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act on 15.10.2014 at the residence and business concern of M/s. Bhuramal Rajmal Surana, a proprietorship concern of Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF. During the course of search, certain

KANHAIYA LAL LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 271FSection 5

property could have been below taxable limit. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 categorically mentions that penalty u/s 271F is not leviable in case the assesee proves that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income during the year under consideration, as per provisions

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1218/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

house property and other sources. The assessee filed original return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act in case of Moti Sons Group to which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to the search and seizure

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

273B of the Act provides as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the provision of s. 271D, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure, referred to in the said provision if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure." 7. The question requires consideration is that

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

Housing Sikar Board, Shivsingpura Sikar, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BIAPS 9302 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

Housing Sikar Board, Shivsingpura Sikar, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BIAPS 9302 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JT. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri F. Rehman Khan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

property and other sources. Return of income was filed on 31/03/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,34,790/-, which was ITA 268/JP/2017_ 2 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat Vs Jt.CIT processed U/s 143(1) of the Act. Notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment was completed U/s 143(3) read with Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

house property in respect of the club building is not assessable to tax, on the principle of mutuality which will extend to such deemed income also on the facts of the case – Chelmsford Club V. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 89(SC).” “Activities should not be commercial or profit – motivated – Where the facilities extended by the clubs to their members

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

house property in respect of the club building is not assessable to tax, on the principle of mutuality which will extend to such deemed income also on the facts of the case – Chelmsford Club V. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 89(SC).” “Activities should not be commercial or profit – motivated – Where the facilities extended by the clubs to their members