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.

15 results for “house property”+ Section 139(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,139Mumbai994Karnataka517Bangalore460Jaipur348Chennai261Kolkata174Hyderabad171Chandigarh164Surat157Ahmedabad141Pune91Cochin82Amritsar80Indore77Telangana55Raipur54Calcutta52Rajkot44Visakhapatnam44Nagpur40Lucknow35Guwahati25Agra17Patna16Jodhpur15SC14Allahabad14Cuttack12Rajasthan9Varanasi6Dehradun4Orissa2Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 153A14Addition to Income13Section 115B12Section 1329Section 143(2)9Section 1398Section 143(1)8Section 1486Section 250(6)6

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

139 taxmann.com 551 (Chennai - Trib.) wherein it was specifically held that where assessee sold land situated at village Eachankaranaiand claimed same as agricultural land as per Notification No. SO 9447, dated 6-1-1994 issued for Chenglepet Municipality area upto 5 Kms. from municipal limits was to be considered and since assessee's 20 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD

Deduction3
Undisclosed Income3
House Property2

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 898/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 899/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

house property, income from business and profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. 3.2 After considering the facts of the case and replies submitted by the assessee ld. AO noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs 80,00,000/- in the bank account between 9.11.2016 to 30.11.2016. While the assessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56

house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from other sources 29, 52,113/- Total 53,54,139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 54F

House Property which too confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) after providing part relief in respect of statutory deduction@ 30% which is bad in law. Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO 6. That the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 547/JODH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140Section 153A

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 548/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140Section 153A

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

section 153A of the Act and also contended that the additions were wrongly made in hands of the Assessee merely on the basis of bank accounts or information in 10 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur relating to accounts, wherein she is just authorized signatory and entire asset/income belong to BWR Trust, which is family trust formed

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 110/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 101/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 111/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 112/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 109/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 108/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14.06.2018 at the business premises of Adarsh Co-operative Society Ltd. of Sirohi and its related persons. Subsequently, search proceedings were also carried out at the business/residential premises of the appellant and members of his family on 19.06.2018 wherein several incriminating