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.

13 results for “house property”+ Section 43(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,987Mumbai1,690Bangalore665Karnataka616Chennai393Ahmedabad370Jaipur358Hyderabad275Kolkata252Chandigarh222Pune162Indore153Surat146Cochin129Telangana124Rajkot77Visakhapatnam73Raipur68Amritsar56Calcutta55Nagpur48Cuttack43Lucknow40SC39Patna30Guwahati25Agra24Allahabad17Jodhpur13Rajasthan10Kerala8Dehradun7Orissa7Varanasi4Panaji2Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Punjab & Haryana1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 26325Section 143(3)11Section 54F11Addition to Income10Section 153A9Section 698Section 132(4)7Section 115B6Business Income5

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Section 1324
Unexplained Investment4
Undisclosed Income4
ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

housing development and town planning, which is the core activity of the appellant in this case also, has been held to be charitable activities within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act fully considering the scope of the proviso below S. 2(15). The law as understood and declared thus by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall relate

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

ITA 30/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Sanchita Kumar (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

house property for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. A payment of Rs.36,00,000/-was made on 27.11.2015 and the remaining payment was made on 30.04.2016. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the said information as to whether the registered deed was executed or not. The AO is directed to examine this issue after verifying necessary details and documents

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

House Property, some Interest income from Bank accounts as well as some income from certain investments and other sources. The said income and sources have been declared by me in returns of income filed with Income Tax department. I am an old lady with multiple medical problems including heart condition, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, thyroid condition and hyperlipidemia. My husband

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Property i) Infrastructural receipt 3,28,975.32 Own warehouse building and goods store on ware house. ii) Rental receipt 37,07,531.68 Goods stored on rented ware houses. Hence your view that A.O. has not verified the expenditure claimed is neither correct nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (4) EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF NON VERIFICATION OF DEDUCTION

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

43,430 Land at Khara 6. 48,64,930 Land at Khara (3.56 Hq) 7. 25,998 Land at Meghasar (1/3 portion of 31.66 Hq) 8. 2,22,202 9. Land at Nokha 1... 85,038 10. Land & Building at Ratansagar Well 2,30,535 Land in JNV Colony (6A-38, 1/2 portion) 11. 17 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

Houses 67,63,42,730.00 5. Contract Work Receipt Gujrat 7,00,89,184.00 6. Agri Development and Other Misc. Contract 9,80,11,520.00 Work Receipt 7. Contract work receipt from B & G 73,97,869.00 Construction 8. Receipt Vat 14% 6,07,583.00 9. Vat 5% 6,01,259.00 10. Vat Free (Exempted) 65,85,891.85 11. Contract

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

43,409/- and on account of advance of Rs. 10.00 lacs to Shri Pawan Kumar. The assessee has 13 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT not disclosed these amounts in the return of income and retracted from statement. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to investigate the issues further and establish

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

43,409/- and on account of advance of Rs. 10.00 lacs to Shri Pawan Kumar. The assessee has 13 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT not disclosed these amounts in the return of income and retracted from statement. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to investigate the issues further and establish

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

5,6 & 8 of Annexure-AS-2 impounded which is a register containing details of purchases of property and payments thereof, vide statement dated 10.12.2010 u/s. 132(4) of Shri Dinkar Mogra, he replied in response to question No. 9 that he had invested Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for Sh. Dinkar Mogra, Udaipur purchase of various land

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

5,6 & 8 of Annexure-AS-2 impounded which is a register containing details of purchases of property and payments thereof, vide statement dated 10.12.2010 u/s. 132(4) of Shri Dinkar Mogra, he replied in response to question No. 9 that he had invested Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for Sh. Dinkar Mogra, Udaipur purchase of various land

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

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250Section 68

5 succeeds. 7. Assessee's Ground No 6 & 7 relating to addition of Rs. 2,27,23,474/-on account of unexplained investment in gold jewellery u/s 69 of the Act 7.1. The Ld. AR argued that during the time of search, the gold jewellery of Rs. 3,06,65,897/- were found from the house and bank lockers