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.

11 results for “house property”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi348Mumbai258Jaipur169Bangalore131Chennai81Chandigarh74Hyderabad68Cochin67Ahmedabad52Amritsar44Pune42Indore40Agra37Surat25Lucknow24Rajkot18Visakhapatnam13Nagpur12Jodhpur12Raipur12Kolkata11Patna10Cuttack5Guwahati4Allahabad3SC3Varanasi2Karnataka1Rajasthan1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)11Addition to Income10Section 69A9House Property7Section 80P(2)(a)6Section 80I6Cash Deposit6Deduction5Section 2504Section 115B

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

3
Capital Gains3
Unexplained Money3

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

SMRITI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1224/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

house property income and income from proprietary business, M/s. Movie Max, which runs Popkorn Cinema at Galaxia Mall, Ranchi. Further, the assessee is also partner in M/s. Sujata Picture Palace along with another partner, Shri Dushyant Jaiswal. During the year under consideration, Sujata Cinema was gutted in fire on 10.02.2017 before filing of the income tax returns. A copy

SHRI BIMAL SINGH KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1342/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

house property it was asked as how the appellant has withdrawn Rs.30,51,000/- in previous year and what was the source of it whereas his salary income was of Rs.2,97,000/- only. The appellant kept quiet over this issue. In view of above the act that the appellant did not establish that it was his business activity

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1294/KOL/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

house property, capital gain and other sources. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals of the money and redeposits in the same bank account range between nine days to three months. The details

ROHIT JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 548/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohit Jaiswal Dcit, Circle 49(1) Vs Aj-55, Sector-It, Salt 169, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Lake, Kolkata-700 091 Bose Rd, West Bengal Kolkata-700 014 West Bengal [Pan : Acipj7386G] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholash Murmu, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

69A read with section 115BBE of the Act at ₹2,73,06,000/-. The impugned addition has been made by the ld. AO on the basis of two observations firstly, that there has been abnormal increase in cash deposits during the said period as compared to the deposit in similar period during preceding financial year and that, the assessee

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

69A the Act, however in the final assessment order he chose not to mention any section under which the addition was made. In response to this show cause notice, the assessee submitted sample copies of development agreements in respect of some of the parties to explain the nature of the advances as also balance confirmation letters and copy of Income

BIBHU PRASAD SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 21/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

section under which these additions had been made. Since the cash deposits are nothing but his unexplained investment, the addition is confirmed as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and in view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

house property, capital gains and other sources like dividend and interest from bank etc. He was one of the working partners of a partnership firm M/s Saltee Estate which was subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act during the year. As such the due date of filing the return of income for the assessee (being a partner

BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS, BISHNUPUR vs. I.T.O.WARD-26(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2166/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bhagwati Developers,………………………..…Appellant Chandandaha Bibirhat, P.O. Charashyamdas P.S. Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas-700162 [Pan:Aakfb2520N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-26(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

properties for carrying on the business of undertaking, developing and building housing projects. The assessee failed to provide the explanation of huge cash withdrawal of Rs.10.81 lakhs during the financial year 2011-12 as well as nature and source of such deposit. After query from the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee clarified that the firm has received Rs.20

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

property which in the opinion of the Engineer-In -Charge are due to the negligence of the contractor, are promptly rectified by the contractor at: their own cost and expenses and! According to the direction and satisfaction of the Engineer-In ·-Charge. viii. As per the contract the assessee is not supposed to sublet / assign any portion of the work