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.

100 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929Mumbai878Jaipur336Chennai335Hyderabad274Bangalore264Chandigarh161Ahmedabad146Pune142Indore140Cochin138Kolkata100Amritsar98Visakhapatnam96Rajkot69Surat66Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow35Calcutta34Agra34Guwahati32Allahabad23Cuttack23Jodhpur18Patna18Karnataka10Telangana8Dehradun6Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4SC4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)113Section 6883Addition to Income78Section 14734Section 25032Section 26332Section 10(38)29House Property28Section 143(2)25

A.C.I.T CIR - 2,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SMT PINKEY PRASAD, BURDWAN

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and that of revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2337/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Bose, AR
Section 143(3)Section 285BSection 69

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the assessee has disclosed in its statement of affairs as on 31.03.2010 an amount of Rs.4,99,920/- as brought forward and Rs.6.50 lacs as investment in house building. According to AO, the assessee has reflected a sum of Rs.4,99,920/- as investment in residential house property

SMT PINKEY PRASAD,ASANSOL vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 2,ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and that of revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

Long Term Capital Gains25
Capital Gains24
Unexplained Cash Credit24
ITA 2334/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Bose, AR
Section 143(3)Section 285BSection 69

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the assessee has disclosed in its statement of affairs as on 31.03.2010 an amount of Rs.4,99,920/- as brought forward and Rs.6.50 lacs as investment in house building. According to AO, the assessee has reflected a sum of Rs.4,99,920/- as investment in residential house property

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

investments, bank statements, share application forms and board’s resolution(s) followed by their respective regular assessment orders pertaining to very assessment year u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Their Assessing Officer(s) made u/s 68 unexplained cash credits additions of share premium amounting

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24Section 263Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Rs. 55,13,750/- and second addition of Rs. 38,38,484/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 Later on, Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The ld PCIT noticed that

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

ITA 582/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 250

unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee in all the assessment orders before us. He held that the assessee has made benami investments in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, Smt. Abha Naug, Shri P K Naug, Shri Abhishek Ghosh & Shri Anirban Ghosh. 3.2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the same, though the assessee has pleaded that

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

ITA 581/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 250

unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee in all the assessment orders before us. He held that the assessee has made benami investments in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, Smt. Abha Naug, Shri P K Naug, Shri Abhishek Ghosh & Shri Anirban Ghosh. 3.2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the same, though the assessee has pleaded that

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

ITA 583/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 250

unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee in all the assessment orders before us. He held that the assessee has made benami investments in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, Smt. Abha Naug, Shri P K Naug, Shri Abhishek Ghosh & Shri Anirban Ghosh. 3.2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the same, though the assessee has pleaded that

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

ITA 580/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 250

unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee in all the assessment orders before us. He held that the assessee has made benami investments in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, Smt. Abha Naug, Shri P K Naug, Shri Abhishek Ghosh & Shri Anirban Ghosh. 3.2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the same, though the assessee has pleaded that

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

ITA 579/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 250

unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee in all the assessment orders before us. He held that the assessee has made benami investments in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, Smt. Abha Naug, Shri P K Naug, Shri Abhishek Ghosh & Shri Anirban Ghosh. 3.2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), confirmed the same, though the assessee has pleaded that

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

unexplained investment or income of the assessee at Rs.39,44,106/- as against Rs.91,65,486/- calculated by learned AO, thereby granted a relief to the assessee to a tune of Rs.52,21,380/-. 4. Challenging these two findings of learned CIT in the impugned order, the Revenue preferred this appeal with three days delay before us on the following

SRI HARIDAS MAITRA,NADIA vs. I.T.O WD - 4,NADIA, NADIA

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

ITA 684/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 142ASection 143(3)

property 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of Country Sprit. The return of income for the I.T.A. No. 684/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 7 year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.3,10,590/-. During the course

BALARAM SURYAVANSHI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1322/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

Section 56(2)(vii)

unexplained investment in purchase of the house property. 7) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KABITA DAS (SAHA), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2175/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

house. In the relevant assessment year, he had filed completed details of construction expenses along with the valuation report of a registered valuer. The Assessing Officer, however, referred the valuation of cost of construction to DVO, who valued the cost of property at a higher figure. Difference in cost of investment in property was added to the assessee's income

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

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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

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

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SRI BIRESWAR KAR, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

investments made by the assessee in various properties, it is quite clear that he himself is a person of worth and the persons from whom he has claimed to have received gift is not so much affluent. This is clear from the fact that one of the person Swapan Das who is the brother in law of the assessee