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.

13 results for “house property”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore18Mumbai13Delhi11Jaipur10Ahmedabad9Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad8Amritsar7Chennai5Surat5Lucknow3Chandigarh2Cuttack2Pune2Cochin1Indore1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271D18Section 271E15Section 292C9Section 269S8Penalty8Section 1327Section 269T7Search & Seizure7Section 69A6Addition to Income

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

4
Undisclosed Income3
ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Section 271D

HOUSES PVT LTD 140000 37 LODHA FOREMOST CONSTRUCTION P LTD 59000 38 LODHA FOUNDATION DEV. & BUILDERS P LTD 58000 39 LODHA HOUSE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD 60000 40 LODHA IDEAL BUILDERS PVT LTD 59000 41 LODHA INFRABUILD & FARMS PVT LTD 72000 42 LODHA INFRACON PVT LTD 50000 43 LODHA INFRACREATIONS & FARMS P LTD 72000 44 LODHA INFRADEVELOPERS

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RUSHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 133(6)

269T were not applicable. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a very reasoned view of the matter by allowing the interest to the tune of Rs.14,87,000/- under section 37, we therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHANTINATH DESIGNER CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 599/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Aarju Garariya (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

properties. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai under the search and seizure action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on the Lodha Group on 10.01.2011 and as a result of undisclosed transactions by the group a disclosure of income to the tune of Rs.200 Cr was made by the group

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7218/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 616/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7219/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2948/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

house property and income from other sources. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares of the scrip Sharp Trade and the details are as under: - Sale of Shares Sr.No Number of Shares Total Sale Price Date Rs.27,99,270/- 1 25000 shares purchased, 07.03.2014 1,500 shares