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.

142 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929Mumbai878Jaipur339Chennai335Hyderabad274Bangalore265Chandigarh161Ahmedabad146Pune142Indore140Cochin138Kolkata100Amritsar98Visakhapatnam96Rajkot69Surat66Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow35Calcutta34Agra34Guwahati32Allahabad23Cuttack23Jodhpur18Patna18Karnataka10Telangana8Dehradun6Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4SC4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 17172Addition to Income71Section 14870Section 6869Section 143(3)50Section 14738Unexplained Investment35Section 115B33Section 13227Section 69

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 329/PUN/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153A

unexplained investment in house property. The assessee had constructed residential 6 A.Y.2002-03 house building at Nira, Tq. Purandar, Dist.-Pune

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
26
Reopening of Assessment20
Disallowance16

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1048/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Avadesh Kumar &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

unexplained investment in property. AO had noted that assessee had purchased a house property for Rs.57 lacs. He after considering

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1049/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Avadesh Kumar &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

unexplained investment in property. AO had noted that assessee had purchased a house property for Rs.57 lacs. He after considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 796/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 676/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 795/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 675/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 677/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 793/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 678/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 794/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri S.K, Jadhav
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim of 23,004 19,98,851 3,09,640 14,52,247 5,28,293 agricultural income Income from -- 75,600 -- -- -- house property

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

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

Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee invested Rs.45,00,000/- in 8 installments. After working out of the investments, there was a difference of unaccounted amounting to Rs.22,48,490/-, the Assessing Officer called for explanation for the said difference. Considering the re-calculation furnished by the assessee, no addition is made on account of different investment. However, the deemed

JAYANT VANECHAND VASA,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 979/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153A

unexplained investment in the residential house construction. 7. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee showed Rs.5,40,256/- towards construction of Bungalow ‘Hemangini Palace”. As per the report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO), the cost of construction during the F.Y. 2001-02 was computed at Rs.11,74,700/-. On being called upon to explain