Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

38 results for “house property”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai209 Delhi147 Bangalore68 Jaipur38 Hyderabad38 Ahmedabad28 Raipur26 Kolkata20 Chennai17 Pune15 Amritsar12 Nagpur11 Chandigarh11 Lucknow10 Indore9 Patna8 Rajkot7 Cuttack6 Visakhapatnam4 Allahabad1 Cochin1 SC1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34 Section 6820 Section 234A19 Section 25018 Disallowance18 Section 153A16 Section 143(3)15 Section 69C14 Depreciation11 Section 270A

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No. 4:- The assessee company purchased property House

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

10

Limitation/Time-bar8

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Gogra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 249Section 40A(3)Section 5

section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed, which reads as under :- Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 1. That the appellant is submitting appeal against order passed by CIT (A) vide order dt. 28.11.2016 wherein addition made in disallowance of cash payment of Rs. 2046000/- is disallowed u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act. 2. That order

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

40A(2)(b) for determination of ALP, there cannot be any adjustment in the income of the assessee on the ground of TP adjustment. Accordingly these grounds of the assessee are allowed. The additions made in the income of the assessee on account of TP adjustment in the domestic transaction are deleted. (x) ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

40A(2)(b) for determination of ALP, there cannot be any adjustment in the income of the assessee on the ground of TP adjustment. Accordingly these grounds of the assessee are allowed. The additions made in the income of the assessee on account of TP adjustment in the domestic transaction are deleted. (x) ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

Housing Corporation Ltd (supra) held that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) from the net profit for the purpose of computing “Book Profit” u/s 115JB of the Act. Chheda Electricals and Electronics (P.) Ltd -vs.- DCIT (ITA NOs. 400 & 668/Pune/2018 dated 04-05-2022) In the said case, the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80IC

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

40A(3) of the Act applies to buyer and not the seller. There being no restriction under the Act to accept cash against sales, the assessee Company cannot be penalized. (h) Hon'ble supreme court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC) has clearly explain that the primary condition for invocation of section

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

40A(3) of cash payment without\nappreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the fact\nthat these transactions were covered under clause(g) of rule 6DD of the\nIncome Tax Act.\n4 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the\nground of appeal during the course of appellant proceeding.”\nFirst, we take

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

properties. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modi Xerox (supra) has considered this issue in paras 17 to 19 as under: ……. 9. Thus, once the transaction of payment of rent is not found to be bogus or ingenuine, then the disallowance of the expenditure under s. 40A(2)(b) is not warranted

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

House, but these dealers had been declared unverified in the case of Shri Ravi Haldia and Dinesh Haldia in AY 2004-05 as per Hon'ble ITAT'S Order dated 31.07.2008 in ITA No 320- 321/JP/2008, It is thus, held that the books of account are defective and theprovisions of section 145(3) are clearly and admittedly applicable. In this

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

3), Rs.66,466/- on account of interest on TDS and Rs.19,59,722/- on account of depreciation by alleging that both were in the nature of under reporting due to misreporting. So far as disallowance on account of depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

3), Rs.66,466/- on account of interest on TDS and Rs.19,59,722/- on account of depreciation by alleging that both were in the nature of under reporting due to misreporting. So far as disallowance on account of depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

House (Supra) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” 4.2 Further assessee admittedly produced sales bills, cash book and all books of account which have not been rejected. The sales

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

40a(ia) Id.PCIT considered the\nreply of the assessee and held that no disallowance was required to be\nmade.\n4.2 So far as the disallowance to be made for ESI & PF being paid late,\nId. AR of the assessee submitted before Id. PCIT that the issue has been\nraised by Id. AO in the assessment proceedings by way of specific

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 118/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

House, Gumanpura,\nKota.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: AAATR8150J\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &\nShri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 20/11/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nThe present

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee