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.

17 results for “house property”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai148Delhi132Chennai61Ahmedabad38Jaipur35Visakhapatnam29Pune29Bangalore29Hyderabad26Chandigarh24Kolkata17Agra13Raipur12Lucknow11Indore10Cochin5Rajkot5Allahabad4Nagpur4Surat4Amritsar2Patna2Dehradun1Guwahati1SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)24Section 14717Section 26317Section 6814Addition to Income14Section 25012Section 1489Section 43C8Section 143(2)7

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT upon

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

Revision u/s 2637
House Property5
Unexplained Cash Credit4

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT upon

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT upon

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT upon

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14A

144B of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2024, by determining the total income at ₹5,88,79,047/-. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings also the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that particularly

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Properties vs. Director of Income-tax (supra). The contention of the assessee in this case was that, the order framed on the directions given by the DDIT u/s 144A of the Act, could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act, as to the extent, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have applied his mind. The Tribunal held

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 815/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 57

144B of the Act, dated 06.09.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, "CIT(A)") erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and such purported

DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1047/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Debasish Banerjee…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Kol- 700069.. [Pan: Agfpb3602C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of An Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.04.2021 By Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 50C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] dated 30.04.2021 by ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata. 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being an individual and derives income from business, capital gains from sale of house property and income from other sources and the assessee filed

SIMOCO SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

144B of the Act, dated 25.09.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 2 Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited AY: 2018-19 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 36(1)(iii)

properties Pvt. Ltd. [“AAIPL”]. 3. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and maintenance service of commercial area let out to various tenants. The assessee had filed return of income during the year declaring total income of Rs. 46,89,36,410/-. The case of the assessee was selected

SUGAM GRIHA NIRMAAN LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1665/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A(1)Section 43C

144B of the Act. The penalty proceeding u/s 270A(1) of the Act was also separately initiated. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 24.06.2024, considered the submission of the assessee on the additions made, but was of the view as mentioned at page 18 of the order

RISHI TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1339/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 1, Old Court House Corner Tobacco House, 1St Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [Pan: Aafcr4754E] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Rs.Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act & Subsequent Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued As The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Has Sold Immovable Property By Adopting Value Lower Than Stamp Valuation Authority. Accordingly, Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Was Passed By Making An Addition Of Rs.28,36,680/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Being The Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Sale Consideration Of The Immovable Property.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43C

House, 1st Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [PAN: AAFCR4754E] vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 25, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 11, 2025 ORDER

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated27.09.2021.Accordingly, grounds of appellant raised on the issue in contention are dismissed.” 5. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), it emerges that though the assessee had filed various details and supporting documents to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum but they fall short of the details

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated27.09.2021.Accordingly, grounds of appellant raised on the issue in contention are dismissed.” 5. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), it emerges that though the assessee had filed various details and supporting documents to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum but they fall short of the details

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 24.07.2024, which has been passed as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dated 11.06.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Order