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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur29Bangalore24Mumbai22Karnataka21Delhi14Hyderabad13Chennai11Agra10Ahmedabad8Pune4Kolkata3Chandigarh3Amritsar2Cuttack2Cochin2Varanasi1Dehradun1Indore1Jabalpur1Nagpur1Rajkot1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271D9Section 1327Section 269S7Section 12A6Section 1273Section 153C3Section 143(3)3Section 2632Penalty2Addition to Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

house. The charges recovered from customer are incidental to the sale of immovable property such as additional amenities. The amount received by assessee in cash having direct nexus with sale consideration and the same has received in violation of Section 269SS. In this support it would be relevant to refer the amendment in Finance Act, 2019 as per which

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1148/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DespandeFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

property as per the sale agreement dated 30.08.2016 during the relevant previous year from the purchaser, Shri Mahesh Nagesh Hanjagi in violation of provisions of section 269SS attracting penalty u/s 271D of the Act for which the Ld. AO sent information to the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Pune (“Addl. CIT”) vide letter dated 06.11.2019 for further

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that,\npower to cancel \"registration\" u/s 12A/12AA/12AB exists with the\nsame authority which grants

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed