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.

101 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi927Mumbai793Chennai313Jaipur312Bangalore273Hyderabad242Chandigarh145Indore133Pune126Ahmedabad125Cochin122Kolkata101Visakhapatnam93Amritsar61Rajkot57Surat56Nagpur47Calcutta34Guwahati33Agra27Lucknow25Raipur24Jodhpur16Cuttack14Patna9Allahabad8Varanasi8Dehradun6Telangana5SC4Karnataka3Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Section 6885Addition to Income81Section 25034Unexplained Cash Credit28House Property26Section 14724Cash Deposit24Section 10(38)

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

money of Rs.4,64,705/- and from that period the assessee was enjoying legal right over the said property. Since the period of payment of purchase consideration of Rs.1,12,11,892/- was followed-up by the assessee till 10-09-2007 i.e., for a period of more than thirty-six months, the right enjoyed by the assessee over

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

23
Long Term Capital Gains23
Section 26321
Capital Gains21

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

money of Rs.4,64,705/- and from that period the assessee was enjoying legal right over the said property. Since the period of payment of purchase consideration of Rs.1,12,11,892/- was followed-up by the assessee till 10-09-2007 i.e., for a period of more than thirty-six months, the right enjoyed by the assessee over

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

money. He terms the impugned share subscription premium ₹690/- per share having face value of ₹10/- each as highly exorbitant. Case laws Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

Unexplained 2,12,857/- adjustment of interest (refer para 2 above) Long Term Capital Gains 9,91,00,694/- 3 Bani Broto Banerjee 5. Dissatisfied with this working, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to admissibility of expenditure incurred for furniture

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

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

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

house property by the assessee. He also submits that the said property was sold during the A.Y 2010-11 by the assessee and the sale proceeds was transferred to fixed deposit by the assessee and thereafter, during the assessment year under consideration, the said amount was withdrawn from the fixed deposit and loan was given to the company namely

ITO, WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. PRATAP PROPERTIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

house' property income by holding that the fair rental value cannot exceed the rent received. 3) That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing . 3. Ground no. 3 is general in nature. Hence, the same is dismissed. 4. Ground no. 1 is against the action

I.T.O WD - 54(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. JHARNA GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 728/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Lahiri, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate
Section 159Section 264

unexplained money of Rs. 12.48 lakhs, income not disclosed during the year Rs.15.03 lakhs and income not disclosed during the year Rs.6,12,500/- is deleted.” 2 Smt. Jharna Ghosh AY 2005-06 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above stated that once the property is considered to be of assessee’s husband at that point

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

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

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

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

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

NIRMAL KUMAR RAY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 1127/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

house property of the assessee and Rs.2,06,401/- on account of unexplained money. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing