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.

2 results for “house property”+ Bogus/Accommodation Entryclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7Mumbai6Bangalore4Kolkata2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 692Bogus/Accommodation Entry2Bogus Purchases2Unexplained Investment2Addition to Income2Search & Seizure2

SMT. LAXMI DEVI CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the word 'evidence' as used in sec. 143(3) covered circumstantial evidence also. The word 'evidence' as used in sec.143 (3) obviously could not be confined to direct evidence. The word 'evidence' was comprehensive enough to cover the circumstantial evidence

SHRI ADITYA CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the word 'evidence' as used in sec. 143(3) covered circumstantial evidence also. The word 'evidence' as used in sec.143 (3) obviously could not be confined to direct evidence. The word 'evidence' was comprehensive enough to cover the circumstantial evidence