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.

11 results for “house property”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi80 Jaipur65 Chennai40 Bangalore33 Hyderabad27 Mumbai25 Agra20 Surat18 Amritsar14 Ahmedabad14 Lucknow11 Pune11 Visakhapatnam10 Chandigarh10 Patna9 Indore9 Kolkata8 Rajkot4 Raipur4 Cuttack3 Guwahati3 Calcutta2 Jodhpur2 Ranchi1 SC1 Dehradun1 Varanasi1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Cash Deposit11 Addition to Income10 Demonetization9 Section 69A7 Section 143(2)6 House Property5 Section 2504 Section 684 Section 143(3)3 Section 115B

HOTEL SURYA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 396/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

demonetization period, (ii) Low receipt from house property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated in 26AS, (iii) Higher

HOTEL SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WAD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

3

Section 142(1)3

ITA 395/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

demonetization period, (ii) Low receipt from house property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated in 26AS, (iii) Higher

ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 115/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44A

house property at Rs. 79,278/- and deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 37,407/-. But all these details remained to be submitted due to non filing of income tax return. Ld. AO has observed that the assessee has not filed return of income. I also observe that during the assessment proceedings assessee has successfully demonstrated that he is engaged

PRATIBHA JAYADATTA KSHIRSAGAR,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pratibha Jayadatta Kshirsagar Vs. Acit, Jalna Kshirsagar Banglow, Nagar Road Circle Opp. Police Head Quarter, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan: Ajlpk8038L Appellant Respondent

demonetization period. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from house property and other

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)Section 69A

house property, income from partnership firms. income from Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited cash of Rs.21,40,780/- in Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Limited during the demonetization

SADHANA ASHOK BHANDARI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1615/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sadhana Ashok Bhandari, V The Income Tax Officer, Queenies Duplex, Vidyasagar S Ward-5(1), Pune. Colonym, Salisbury Park, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Agmpb0289Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rishabh Patni – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade - Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017- 18 Dated 14.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That The Ld.Ao Framed The Assessment Order Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Appellant Is Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. The Assessment So Framed Shall Be Treated As Null & Void. Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 250Section 69A

Demonetization Period. Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer(AO) that the cash was out of her accumulated cash balances. Assessee submitted cash book and bank statement for verification. Assessee submitted that she has income from house property

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

house property, short term capital gain, income from other sources and agricultural 5 income. The Assessing Officer(AO) in the assessment order observed that assessee had deposited cash in the bank account between 11.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 as under: Date Name of Bank Account Amount(Rs.) 10-11-2016 Corporation Bank 2,00,000/- 11-11-2016 Corporation Bank

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

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

ITA 2878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

House, Plot No 3, 4 and 5, Sr. Vs. No.34A/6, Behind Shakti Sports, Nagar Road, Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411014 PAN: AACAV1580B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing : 26-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal

PRAVIN NARAYAN ATTARDE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

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

ITA 267/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

house and admission for MDS. There is clearly established that the reason given for cash in hand not justifiable. Perusal of the assessment order, the appellant explained before the AO that during the F.Y. 2016-17, he had purchased a Flat being No. 901 in Stargaze Apartment Pune on 02.07.2016 from Kolte Patil Developers, Pune for Rs.98,35,764, Stamp

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1385/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

demonetization period MAB Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. had transferred an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 in the plant's bank account along with other beneficiaries. During the assessment proceeding the AO observed that M/s AB Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, filed return of income up to A.Y. 2011-12 only and thereafter, it was reopened after recording the reasons to believe that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL DIST. RAIGAD vs. SHAILESHKUMAR DINESHBHAI PATEL, TAL. MHASALA

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

ITA 1353/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144

demonetization, the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.13 lakhs in his bank account. Since the assessee has not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year i.e. assessment year 2017-18, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued and served on the assessee requiring