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.

12 results for “house property”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai148Delhi132Chennai61Ahmedabad38Jaipur35Visakhapatnam29Pune29Bangalore29Hyderabad26Chandigarh24Kolkata17Agra13Raipur12Lucknow11Indore7Cochin5Rajkot5Allahabad4Nagpur4Surat4Amritsar2Patna2Dehradun1Guwahati1SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14830Section 14727Section 26325Section 148A9Section 699Reopening of Assessment8Revision u/s 2638Section 17Limitation/Time-bar7

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

Section 69A6
Section 143(3)4
Addition to Income4

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

property; and (v) the scientific and irrefutable evidence in the form of satellite images taken by ISRO, i.e. a premier government agency alongwith the CCOST report(s) analyzing the said imageries, which all evidenced that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years prior to the date of its transfer. Accordingly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs. RASHMI LAKHOTIA, DURG

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 244/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 244/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 13.02.2025, for the Assessment Year 2020-21, which in turn arises from the order of Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AR”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 260 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.11.2023. 2 DCIT-1(1), Bhilai Vs Rashmi Lakhotia

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

property worth of Rs.59,28,000/- and deposited cash of Rs.1,00,36,750/- which did not get commensurate with the ITR, re-opened the case under section 148 of the Act. 2 Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) Consequential assessment under section 144 rws 144 and 144B of the Act was completed at income of Rs.1

REKH CHAND NAHTA, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 3/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rekh Chand Nahta House No.97, Gurudwara Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar-494 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aplpn0667E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

House No.97, Gurudwara Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar-494 001 (C.G.) PAN: APLPN0667E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA Revenue by : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 2 Rekh Chand Nahta

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 337/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

144B of the Act was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the same needs to be revised under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 3 Ardent Steels Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 3. With the aforesaid observations, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 27.09.2024 asking the assessee

KAVITA BUDHIA,NEAR MAA SHARDA HOSPITAL RING ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KORBA, MAHANADI COMPLEX, NIHARIKA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 171/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 171/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 08.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order passed by Assessing Officers, National Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi (in short “Ld. AR”), u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 04.12.2023. 2 Kavita Budhia Vs ITO, Ward-1, Korba