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.

18 results for “house property”+ Section 139(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,068Mumbai888Karnataka516Jaipur406Bangalore404Chennai230Ahmedabad226Hyderabad187Chandigarh187Surat160Kolkata154Indore122Cochin121Pune107Visakhapatnam104Amritsar85Telangana55Raipur54Calcutta52Rajkot48Lucknow39Nagpur35Guwahati29Allahabad26Jodhpur18Cuttack17Patna17Agra15SC14Rajasthan9Varanasi6Dehradun5Orissa2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 115B18Addition to Income15Section 153A14Section 14811Section 13910Section 143(2)9Section 1329Section 699Section 250(6)7

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

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

Undisclosed Income6
Unexplained Investment5
Business Income3

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

9. Section 115BAC reads as under:- “115BAC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after

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

9. Section 115BAC reads as under:- “115BAC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after

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

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

SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Stay Application No

ITA 252/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Vikash Chhabra Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. P.K. Singi, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

9. The appellant craves leave and sanction of the Hon’ble ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be produced or filed before lower authorities either because proper and sufficient opportunity was not provided or because it was not solicited

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

9 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur 19. During post search proceedings, Assessee was asked to appear before AO and summon were issued u/s 131 of the Act and in her statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, assessee has stated that she has no bank account or property in any foreign country. However, department proceeded further

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

section 153A as well as 139 and not filed returns of income for the period covered under search. Further, the impounded documents also speak about the transaction and detailed of unexplained investment made by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has completely failed to give any explanation on these documents and failed to declare the same

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

section 153A as well as 139 and not filed returns of income for the period covered under search. Further, the impounded documents also speak about the transaction and detailed of unexplained investment made by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has completely failed to give any explanation on these documents and failed to declare the same

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

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

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

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

SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST ,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/JODH/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsrsl Charitable Trust, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Srsl House, Pulla Bhuwana Jaipur. Road, National Highway No. 8, Udaipur. Pan No. Aaats 3819 F Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 02/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Activities Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Genuinely Charitable & Also Not Carried Out In Accordance With The Objects Of The Trust. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Making Various Incorrect & Irrelevant Observations Particularly Holding That Rental Income Received From Letting Out The Properties Stated To Be Acquired For The Purpose Of Providing Educational Services To The Students Is An Activity Of Commercial In Nature Hit

Section 12ASection 133ASection 2(15)

Housing Society, Kalwa Devi Road, Mumbai (PB 71) seeking NOC for running training and counseling centre at the flat located therein. Thus, the property at Delhi and Mumbai was acquired in furtherance of its objects of imparting the education. Only because till date the property couldn’t be used for the aforesaid purpose cannot be a ground to cancel

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

139 which includes Rs.475,000/ under appeal before the Bench. However, the only dispute is with regard to treating the same as unexplained money or unexplained investment u/s 69/69A by lower authorities and accordingly taxing the same under special rates of income or regular business income as offered by assessee. The provisions of Section

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

139 which includes Rs.475,000/ under appeal before the Bench. However, the only dispute is with regard to treating the same as unexplained money or unexplained investment u/s 69/69A by lower authorities and accordingly taxing the same under special rates of income or regular business income as offered by assessee. The provisions of Section