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.

126 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi927Mumbai793Jaipur315Chennai313Bangalore274Hyderabad242Chandigarh145Indore133Pune126Ahmedabad125Cochin122Kolkata101Visakhapatnam93Amritsar61Rajkot57Surat56Nagpur47Calcutta34Guwahati33Agra31Lucknow25Raipur24Jodhpur16Cuttack14Patna9Allahabad8Varanasi8Dehradun6Telangana5SC4Karnataka3Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Ranchi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 6889Addition to Income79Section 14864Section 143(3)58Section 13251Section 14747Section 153A38Section 69A36Section 143(2)36Unexplained Investment

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

money lending business of assessee and non allowance of bad debts. Vide ground of appeal No. 6, the assessee is in appeal against the addition of Rs.34,12,040/- on account of unexplained investment in house property

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

Showing 1–20 of 126 · Page 1 of 7

23
Reopening of Assessment22
Search & Seizure18

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

money to the extent of Rs. 24,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the IT Act in this year on the basis of date of last operation of the lockers. However, out of Rs. 24,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- was already offered to the tax as undisclosed income in the return of income

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

money to the extent of Rs. 24,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the IT Act in this year on the basis of date of last operation of the lockers. However, out of Rs. 24,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- was already offered to the tax as undisclosed income in the return of income

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. PAN : AALPC4991M Appellant Respondent 2 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 Assessee by : Shri Ratan Samal, Mrs. Ruchi M. Rathod & Shri H. G. Sharma Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 06.06.2023 Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These are the cross appeals filed

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 221/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

property was found belonging to this appellant’s deceased grandfather Lt. Tukaram Govind Pathare. We therefore quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Prakash V/s. ITO 2009 312 ITR 40 (Bom.) to affirmed the impugned disallowance in principle. 4. The fact also remains that we have prime facie notice assessee have executed his corresponding sale deed (registered documents

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1188/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132(4)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

property mentioned on seized documents is written as Vimannagar, the said area is in Pune and not in Jalna. Thus, addition made on probability and presumption on the basis of dumb documents is not sustainable. The AO has not been able to prove that the appellant has received on money on sale of residential house. Therefore, the impugned addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 682/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

money payments and there is evidence to support the same. From this point of view, it is an undisputed fact that, in principle, the said agreement to sale seized by the Department during the course of search & seizure action is an accounted transaction and therefore it is not an incriminating document for the AO to rely on for making additions

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

money payments and there is evidence to support the same. From this point of view, it is an undisputed fact that, in principle, the said agreement to sale seized by the Department during the course of search & seizure action is an accounted transaction and therefore it is not an incriminating document for the AO to rely on for making additions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

money payments and there is evidence to support the same. From this point of view, it is an undisputed fact that, in principle, the said agreement to sale seized by the Department during the course of search & seizure action is an accounted transaction and therefore it is not an incriminating document for the AO to rely on for making additions

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total Income of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 4 The AO stated that the case was selected under Limited scrutiny for the reason "Cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period". On perusal of bank account statement

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from „other sources‟ because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money

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

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 69A

unexplained money and is taxed under the head income from other sources without allowing the set off of brought forward business losses as claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income.” Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs.78 lakhs which was disclosed by the assessee as additional income during survey action for the A.Y. 2006-07 as deemed

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 69A

unexplained money and is taxed under the head income from other sources without allowing the set off of brought forward business losses as claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income.” Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs.78 lakhs which was disclosed by the assessee as additional income during survey action for the A.Y. 2006-07 as 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

money lending activity, the amount as computed by the ld. CIT(A) on this score at Rs.4,17,350/- is held to be correctly added. This issue is, therefore, determined against the assessee. 6. The only other issue which has been pressed in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,67,857/- towards unexplained investment

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

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 980/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

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

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

money lending activity, the amount as computed by the ld. CIT(A) on this score at Rs.4,17,350/- is held to be correctly added. This issue is, therefore, determined against the assessee. 6. The only other issue which has been pressed in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,67,857/- towards unexplained investment

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

In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed

ITA 978/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

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

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

money lending activity, the amount as computed by the ld. CIT(A) on this score at Rs.4,17,350/- is held to be correctly added. This issue is, therefore, determined against the assessee. 6. The only other issue which has been pressed in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,67,857/- towards unexplained investment