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.

30 results for “house property”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,345Mumbai1,018Jaipur440Bangalore414Chennai323Hyderabad253Chandigarh157Kolkata151Cochin149Indore141Ahmedabad132Pune116Visakhapatnam114Rajkot79Amritsar66Surat60Nagpur46Raipur45Agra39Calcutta35Lucknow34Patna32Guwahati31Jodhpur30Karnataka24Cuttack22Allahabad20Dehradun13Varanasi8Telangana7SC7Jabalpur3Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 153A31Addition to Income29Section 143(2)17Section 143(3)14Section 14813Section 115B13Section 14712Section 133A12Section 13210

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

Undisclosed Income8
Natural Justice8
Survey u/s 133A8
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

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. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding

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

undisclosed income aggregating Rs. 2,18,11,563/- based on seized material and discrepancy found as under:- i. Disclosure of Rs. 11,0,000/- on account of loan of unaccounted commission income from property transaction. ii. Disclosure of Rs. 5,66,563/- on account of loan given from unaccounted sources of Rs. 4,75,00/- and interest income thereon

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

undisclosed income aggregating Rs. 2,18,11,563/- based on seized material and discrepancy found as under:- i. Disclosure of Rs. 11,0,000/- on account of loan of unaccounted commission income from property transaction. ii. Disclosure of Rs. 5,66,563/- on account of loan given from unaccounted sources of Rs. 4,75,00/- and interest income thereon

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

house on rent for five years to Shri Rajendra Karnani as per agreement. After competition of period of five year he vacates the premises. During the year the appellant had utilized for self- purpose and not given on rent to anyone. The rental income of Rs 78,000/- as per agreement was disclosed by appellant while filing

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

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

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
Section 133A

undisclosed income and the reasonability of the explanation so\noffered by the Assessee keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the\nrelevant case. In fact, if we look at the provisions of section 133A, clause (iii) of\nsub-section (3) provides that an income tax authority acting under this section\nshall record the statement of any person which

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

Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 18. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned additions u/s 69 and 69A of the Act in the hands of Appellant on account of alleged unexplained foreign assets. 19. Under the facts and circumstances

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment—Assessment in respect of each of six assessment years was separate and distinct assessment—U/s.153A , assessment had to be made in relation to search or 7 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur requisition, namely, in relation to material

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

undisclosed income invested in construction of hospital building at Rs.1,01,00,000/- but included income of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in his return of income). (ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in invoking provision of section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

ITA 53/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

undisclosed income of assessee and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of Rs. 73,92,980/- by making addition of Rs. 68,95,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A of the Act. 3. It was submitted that the assessee only source of income is rental income which

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 228/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search, the assessments for A.YS 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, already stood completed and since no incriminating material was unearthed during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search, the assessments for A.YS 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, already stood completed and since no incriminating material was unearthed during

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

Property is From his Undisclosed Income and Making the Addition U/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. No Information whatsoever in Nature Regarding Source of Unexplained Investment had been given in Reasons or not mentioned in Assessment. So Addition cannot be upheld on this Ground. 8. That the Ld. A.O. had failed to made the addition on the basis

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

undisclosed profit. A further additions of Rs.56,400/~ and Rs.1,10,000/- were made by the ld. AO on account unaccounted cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on the basis of seized documents. Another addition of Rs. 5,17,176/- was made by the ld. AO by treating the same as deemed income