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.

22 results for “house property”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi287Hyderabad98Bangalore91Mumbai76Jaipur51Indore30Chennai29Chandigarh28Visakhapatnam24Pune22Surat22Nagpur15Amritsar13Agra10Cochin8Rajkot7Allahabad2Dehradun2Ahmedabad1Calcutta1Telangana1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Search & Seizure19Section 13217Section 153A15Addition to Income14Section 143(2)13Unexplained Investment8Natural Justice8Section 1395Section 1315

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Section 133A3
Survey u/s 133A3
Section 139(1)2

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

ITA 875/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 5.5 In view of discussion above

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 872/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation.” 9. Relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 876/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 5.5 In view of discussion above

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 877/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 5.5 In view of discussion above

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 702/PUN/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 705/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1059/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1061/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 701/PUN/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 704/PUN/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 703/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1060/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R BhattFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

house property, income from business and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,01,810. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. C & M Farming Ltd. (C&M Group cases

GANRAJ HOMES LLP ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer