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.

50 results for “house property”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi419Mumbai343Bangalore202Jaipur171Hyderabad168Visakhapatnam66Pune59Chennai57Chandigarh56Kolkata50Rajkot47Indore33Amritsar32Cochin30Ahmedabad29Surat20Guwahati17Lucknow16Agra14Nagpur14Jodhpur12Patna12Allahabad4Ranchi3Raipur2Telangana2Panaji2Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Section 133A27Addition to Income25Survey u/s 133A23Section 26321Section 194J15Section 14815Section 153A14Section 25011Section 143(2)

SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 936/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133A

property. According to the ld. AR, the appellant office premises was surveyed u/s 133A of the Act on 16.01.2013 and during the course of survey, the appellant disclosed an additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs which was stated to have been invested in house

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

11
House Property10
Undisclosed Income10
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(vi)

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. On the basis of documents found during the course of survey, the A.O. was of the view that the assessee company had not complied with the TDS provisions properly in the following cases: “i. TDS was not made at all on payment

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SDV INTERNATION LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 708/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(vi)

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. On the basis of documents found during the course of survey, the A.O. was of the view that the assessee company had not complied with the TDS provisions properly in the following cases: “i. TDS was not made at all on payment

SDV INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(vi)

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. On the basis of documents found during the course of survey, the A.O. was of the view that the assessee company had not complied with the TDS provisions properly in the following cases: “i. TDS was not made at all on payment

D.C.I.T.CC - VIII,KOL., KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAGAR MAL NAHATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1898/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, ld.CIT/DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

U/s. 133A at Park Plaza, Ground Floor, Room No.13, 71,Park Street, Kolkata-16, on 03-03-2010, Statement of Mr. Baldeo Singh was recorded in his statement, he stated that he was working as peon of M/s. Mahavir Finance Ltd; M/s. Panchmukhi Properties Ltd. and other companies. He stated that M/s. Mahavir Finance Ltd., M/s. Panchmukhi Properties

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1060/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

survey operation u/s 133A of the Act 3 Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2019-20 conducted at the office premise of the assessee on 17.01.2019 in “Dhanuka Group” of cases. In response to the notices the assessee-company submitted/furnished all the relevant details online electronically. The assessment u/s 143(3) the Act was made at the returned income

ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAMAL BANERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

House Property”. The issue was discussed in detail in assessment order. It is gathered from record that on the same issue in AY 1993-94 order u/s 143(3)/254/251 dated 29.12.2006 of the I.T. Act, was passed and the assessee has not preferred further appeal and accepted the said order. (2) The ld. CIT(A) has erred

SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 946/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 24

House Property". (c) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted the benefit of standard deduction @ 30% of the rental income as per section 24(a) against the rental income of Rs. 3,36,000/- .” 3. The first issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition

JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 597/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2017

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 12Section 12ASection 132

property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly. 41. The provision thus, emphasizes upon the income of the trust created wholly for charitable or religious purposes or an institution established wholly for such purposes and so is the case in sub-section (2) of the aforesaid

UDAY SHANKAR MAHAWAR,KOLKATA vs. A.CI.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2019[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

house property, business or profession, capital and income from other sources. The AO while completing the assessment observed that during the course of survey operation on 22.08.2014 the assessee’s statement was recorded u/s. 133A

MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

ITA 729/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

house to these paper companies viz. M/s. Globallnfratech and Finance Limited cannot also be ignored. On careful analysis of all the facts and circumstances stated above, it appears that the assessee had purchased and sold the scrip at pre-determined price, pre-determined time and to pre-determined buyers with the help of accommodation entry providers, share broker

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1317/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

house property , interest and dividend. The original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 was filed on 18.8.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,13,87,024/- and no assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made in this case. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 6.2.2012 in the residential

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1319/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

house property , interest and dividend. The original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 was filed on 18.8.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 11,13,87,024/- and no assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made in this case. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 6.2.2012 in the residential

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUTCO BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1253/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

property. The assessee in the year under consideration filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹42,11,133/- dated 25.09.2010. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide dated 26.05.2011. 6. A survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at business premises of assessee on 11.03.2010 wherein several documents, books of account

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Act was conducted in the various business premises of the assessee on 12.6.2009. Post survey enquiries revealed certain undisclosed properties made by the assessee in land in the district of Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. The assessee purchased landed property admeasuring 26 decimals in Bhanderberia Taluk with Door

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Act was conducted in the various business premises of the assessee on 12.6.2009. Post survey enquiries revealed certain undisclosed properties made by the assessee in land in the district of Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. The assessee purchased landed property admeasuring 26 decimals in Bhanderberia Taluk with Door