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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai148Delhi132Chennai61Ahmedabad38Jaipur35Visakhapatnam29Pune29Bangalore29Hyderabad26Chandigarh24Kolkata17Agra13Raipur12Lucknow11Indore7Cochin5Rajkot5Allahabad4Nagpur4Surat4Amritsar2Patna2Dehradun1Guwahati1SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2502Section 1472Section 142(1)2Section 69A2Section 115B2Addition to Income2

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

ITA 519/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

house property’ and the assessee has also declared the agricultural income of Rs.39,45,200/- during the FY under consideration. As the assessee failed to establish the agriculture income as claimed by her in the return of income, therefore, it was concluded that the agricultural income shown by the assessee is nothing but unexplained money. The amount of Rs.39

MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

ITA 16/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

property, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 72,54,686/- on account of alleged deposits in the bank accounts, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the learned NFAC