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.

7 results for “house property”+ Section 173clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka453Delhi445Mumbai328Bangalore122Chandigarh73Hyderabad64Chennai43Raipur41Indore38Jaipur38Kolkata35Lucknow35Ahmedabad25Pune18Telangana17Patna17Calcutta17Surat11Nagpur8SC7Jodhpur7Visakhapatnam6Rajasthan4Agra4Varanasi4Cochin4Andhra Pradesh1Amritsar1Allahabad1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Guwahati1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 69A16Section 153A7Addition to Income7Section 115B6Business Income5Section 153D4Section 43C4Section 44A4Section 1533

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

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

Section 143(3)3

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

173 TTJ 332 (Mum.) Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. 13. On the contrary, the Ld. DR has objected and placed reliance on Order of Ld. CIT(A) at para no. 100-101. He has further asserted that assessment proceedings commenced from 03.02.2020 with issuance of notice

SUNITA HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 915/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Α.Μ.:

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 916/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 903/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 904/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 417/JODH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

173\n(Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the\nassessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite\nretraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in\nsupport of such addition.\niii.\nHon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Raj Dhariwal,\n63 DTR 83 observed