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.

905 results for “house property”+ Section 4(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,508Delhi4,489Bangalore1,633Chennai1,355Ahmedabad908Jaipur905Kolkata874Karnataka831Hyderabad773Pune686Chandigarh466Surat352Cochin334Indore333Visakhapatnam296Telangana218Amritsar186Rajkot162Raipur139Lucknow126Nagpur124Cuttack117Agra85SC83Patna72Calcutta69Jodhpur60Guwahati51Dehradun39Allahabad37Varanasi25Rajasthan23Kerala20Ranchi20Jabalpur19Panaji11Orissa9Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73Section 143(3)65Section 26344Section 132(4)37Section 14728House Property28Section 271A27Section 54F27Section 6825

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay

Showing 1–20 of 905 · Page 1 of 46

...
Section 5425
Disallowance21
Deduction20

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2014-15
Section 271A

4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) on or before the specified date–– (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1252/JPR/2019[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 132(12)Section 132(4)Section 132(5)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 5 Sh. Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu 132(4) is not applicable in a requisition u/s 132A. In any case assessee has explained in the “Notes to the return of income” that the money belongs to his four brothers and also to his brother in law who own 40 bigha of irrigated agricultural land but still

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271Section 271ASection 271aSection 274

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition 38 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1373/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as 28 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. per the definition provided

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1378/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 40A(3)

4. Alternative Plea:- It is submitted that the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in making addition under the head income from house property is in contravention of section 23(1

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1383/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1376/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

1. House 574405.00 2. House 2 438675.00 In this schedule the assessee had nowhere stated that these two houses were residential houses. It is not clear from where the AO gathered the information that these two houses were residential houses. There could be following possibilities in this case: a. Both the houses were residential houses. b. Both the houses were

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 857/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under sub-section (4

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found

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

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271A

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition 25 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income