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.

29 results for “house property”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,283Delhi4,456Bangalore1,565Chennai1,265Jaipur888Hyderabad862Ahmedabad844Kolkata832Pune782Karnataka651Chandigarh486Indore346Surat339Cochin333Visakhapatnam302Amritsar178Telangana168Rajkot145Raipur140Lucknow131Nagpur127Cuttack125Agra94Patna78Jodhpur65Calcutta62SC51Guwahati51Dehradun42Allahabad37Ranchi29Varanasi25Rajasthan22Panaji14Kerala13Jabalpur11Orissa7Punjab & Haryana4Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati2J&K1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Addition to Income26Section 132(4)21Section 14715Section 14814Business Income12Cash Deposit11House Property9Section 153A8Search & Seizure8Section 54F

M/S JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RNC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

ADDITIONALLY, the common expenses are such expenses incurred by the firm that cannot be bifurcated exactly into expenditure incurred for house property or business therefore 3 these expenses are divided between the two in the ratio of floor area used for house property is to floor area used for business. Since the Ld C.I.T.(A) has treated income

SHRI SANJOG PRASAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 143(3)7
Section 1397
ITA 109/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.109/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Sanjog Prasad, Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), H.No.493, B-Block, Sonari, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur-831011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acupp 8930 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 14.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.50/Jsr/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Assessment Being Completed U/S 147/143(3) Is Ab Initio Void & Illegal. The Subject Matter For The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 Was Already Considered & Looked Into During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment U/S 143(3). As Such, This Initiation Can Only Be Said To Be Change Of Opinion. As Such, Proceeding Being Initiated U/S 147 Is Ab Initio Void, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted. 2. For That The Authorities Below Were Not Justified In Not Considering The Objection Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147. There Was No Fresh Material Available On Record With The Ld. Ao To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. As Such, The Proceeding Being Initiated Merely On Change Of Opinion Is Unjustified, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

addition of Rs.66,300/- on 5 account of flat No.502, Syndicate Colony, Uliyan Kadma, Jamshedpur to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income, therefore, it is a clear case of change of opnion. 12. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, I may point out that the AO on 21.09.2017 recorded the following reasons

SUNILA JHA ,BOKARO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD THREE(FOUR), BOKARO

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 63/RAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Sunila Sunila Jha, Jha, Qr. Qr. No.591, No.591, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Income Tax Officer, Ward Sector-Ic, B.S.City, Bokaro Ic, B.S.City, Bokaro- 3, (4), Bokaro 827001 Pan/Gir No. .Azopj 0891 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Choudhary, Adv Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 21.2.2024 In In Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A), No.Cit(A), Hazaribag/10199/2019 Hazaribag/10199/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 18. 2. Shri M.K.Choudhury M.K.Choudhury, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Ed For The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya

house property and interest income. It was the submission that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had submission that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had submission that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2017-18 deposited Rs.53,77,500/- in cash in her bank account during

DR. R.N. MAHTO,RANCHI vs. ITO, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 22/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2010-2011 Dr. R.N.Mahto Principal, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4),Ranchi Rtc High School, Buti, Ranchi Pan No. : Abepm 6987 D Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

additions of Rs.2786704/- as income from capital gains ignoring all the facts related with the transfer of land without consideration as donation to the RTC B.Ed. college and without applying the facts of the case and legal provisions. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income from salary and has filed return

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property D - Profits and gains of business or profession E - Capital gains F - Income from other sources 8.1. The income in the present case, if at all, is traceable to 'Capital gains' which is one of the heads of income. If by application of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 48 which are integrally connected with each

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

additional ground is in respect of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) against return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, the entire assessment is null and void. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, house property

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

additional ground is in respect of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) against return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, the entire assessment is null and void. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, house property

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [PAN: AABFM2851Q] vs. ACIT, CC-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 21, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

addition. The learned Assessing Officer in Principle had accepted the flats was constructed in Financial Year 2009-10. Also the learned Assessing Officer had accepted that flat was sold in Financial Year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). The period between Financial Year 2009-10 to Financial Year 2012-13 is 48 months. Thus flats had to be treated as Long

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RAN/2025[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain of ₹30,55,833, claimed as exempt, arising from sale of equity shares on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information received through a list forwarded from the PMO/Investigation Wing, alleging that

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133(6)

house property. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the ACIT Vs Sri Vikash Agarwal audit report filed by the assessee that the assessee has taken unsecured loans of ₹ 1.00 crore from M/s Amar Steels, ₹ 1,40,27,614/- from M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises and ₹ 36,10,000/- from M/s JDK Furnitech. Regarding the unsecured loan from M/s Amar

DULU MAHATO,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)

house property originally belonged to the assessee’s father and on his demise, it is jointly owned by the assessee and his three brothers. It was the submission that it is fairly agreed that there has been renovation in the property. It was the submission that all the brothers are also replied to the notices issued u/s.133

DULU MAHATO,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)

house property originally belonged to the assessee’s father and on his demise, it is jointly owned by the assessee and his three brothers. It was the submission that it is fairly agreed that there has been renovation in the property. It was the submission that all the brothers are also replied to the notices issued u/s.133

GITA KUMARI,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/RAN/2022[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 142ASection 147Section 69

addition made by the AO of Rs. 23,71,298/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of 2 AY: 2017-18 Gita Kumari undisclosed investment in the construction of residential house on the basis of report of valuation officer. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 207/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

House Dipugarha, Hazaribagh-825301. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AELPK 5256 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Choudhry, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 243/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

House Dipugarha, Hazaribagh-825301. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AELPK 5256 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Choudhry, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year

VISHWANATH PRASAD VISHWKARMA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(4), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/RAN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devasis Sannigrahi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

house property on 27.7.2012. It was the submission that the sale consideration of the property was Rs.3,20,00,000/-. It was the submission that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring long term capital gains. In the computation of long term capital gains, the assessee had adopted the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.25

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Sannigarh, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

additions of Rs. 43,89,499/- under the head short term capital gain to the returned income by treating the aforesaid property as Short term Capital Asset. On further appeal to the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the ld CIT(A) denied to admit the claim of the assessee in regard to the capital gains as Long term with

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 197/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 144Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) also ignored the law points involved in the case of difference of consideration value and value taken for stamp duty. 4. Ground no. 1 and 2 relate to relief of Rs. 69,96,455/­ on account of capital gain ignoring the provisions of section

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BAJAJ, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhury/Manav Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Income Tax Officer, Ward Vs. Shri Om Praash Bajaj, 11, 2(1), Jamshedpur Golmuri Market, Golmuri, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.ABOPB 7556 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K.Choudhury/Manav Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT Date of Hearing : 26/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 29/11/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed