Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

64 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929 Mumbai878 Jaipur336 Chennai335 Hyderabad274 Bangalore264 Chandigarh161 Ahmedabad146 Pune142 Indore140 Cochin138 Kolkata100 Amritsar98 Visakhapatnam96 Rajkot69 Surat66 Nagpur64 Raipur47 Lucknow35 Calcutta34 Agra34 Guwahati32 Allahabad23 Cuttack23 Jodhpur18 Patna18 Karnataka10 Telangana8 Dehradun6 Panaji4 Jabalpur4 Varanasi4 SC4 Gauhati1 Punjab & Haryana1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 153C88 Section 153A65 Section 143(3)64 Addition to Income54 Section 6843 Section 14736 Section 14827 Section 143(2)22 Section 80I18

SHRI VIVEK M .DESHPANDE,,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 1/NAG/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153

unexplained investment in house property and another of Rs.8,65,575/- being unexplained investment in purchase of two pieces of agricultural

SHRI VIVEK M .DESHPANDE,,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

Unexplained Investment15

Search & Seizure13

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

ITA 2/NAG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153

unexplained investment in house property and another of Rs.8,65,575/- being unexplained investment in purchase of two pieces of agricultural

ANANT GAJANAN BANCHPALLIWAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(1),, NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

For Appellant: Shri V.V.SaranjameFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 285Section 68

House Property Rs.3,18,175/- (Claimed by Appellant as income of HUF) 2. Income from other sources Bank interest Rs. 5,097/- 3. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 21,12,782/- 4. ` Unexplained investment

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

unexplained and making the addition under section 69 of the Act. The source of investment 2 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar in property being from explainable sources and the source of investment in property being held to be explained in the hands of the co-owner of the property, the addition so made is illegal and liable to be deleted

SMT RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 235/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

unexplained investment in silver & diamond. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.5,00,435/- made by AO as undisclosed income from House Property

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 289/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

unexplained investment in silver & diamond. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.5,00,435/- made by AO as undisclosed income from House Property

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

house property income (i) ` 1,36,709 disallowed Agricultural income has been treated as business (ii) ` 2,52,393 income Dividend income claimed exempt u/s 10(34) (iii) ` 20,15,681 treated as income from other sources Unsecured loan as under treated unexplained ` 68,02,624 (iv) Dharampal Agarwal HUF Rs. 59,12,624 Agarwal Enterprises

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 292/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

unexplained investment in immovable property, to Rs.9,61,000/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 18. Grounds raised in ITA no.293/Nag./2016, for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 23/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

unexplained investment in immovable property, to Rs.9,61,000/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 18. Grounds raised in ITA no.293/Nag./2016, for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 67/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 64/NAG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 66/NAG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 69/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 65/NAG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

ITA 68/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

MS. FATEMA SHOEB SHUSSAIN ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -2(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/NAG/2018[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment in House Property. 11] Learned A.O. erred in not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

house from Mls Ashed Properties Pvt Ltd. on one loose chit, found during the course of search and reproduced by AO on Page' No 6 of his order. The AO on the basis of loose chit construed that the total consideration was Rs 1,82,92,5001- of which the assessee paid Rs 50,00,0001- in cash

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

house from Mls Ashed Properties Pvt Ltd. on one loose chit, found during the course of search and reproduced by AO on Page' No 6 of his order. The AO on the basis of loose chit construed that the total consideration was Rs 1,82,92,5001- of which the assessee paid Rs 50,00,0001- in cash

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 512/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

house from Mls Ashed Properties Pvt Ltd. on one loose chit, found during the course of search and reproduced by AO on Page' No 6 of his order. The AO on the basis of loose chit construed that the total consideration was Rs 1,82,92,5001- of which the assessee paid Rs 50,00,0001- in cash

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 499/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

house from Mls Ashed Properties Pvt Ltd. on one loose chit, found during the course of search and reproduced by AO on Page' No 6 of his order. The AO on the basis of loose chit construed that the total consideration was Rs 1,82,92,5001- of which the assessee paid Rs 50,00,0001- in cash