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.

2 results for “house property”+ Section 201(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi605Mumbai581Karnataka484Bangalore285Ahmedabad120Jaipur118Hyderabad113Chennai80Kolkata76Visakhapatnam46Cochin43Chandigarh37Pune37Rajkot33Cuttack29Raipur26Telangana21Indore20Surat17Calcutta17Lucknow15Amritsar12Jodhpur11Patna8SC7Kerala5Rajasthan4Nagpur3Allahabad2Agra2Varanasi2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 124(3)(a)2Section 124(2)2Section 250(1)2Addition to Income2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

house property or in shares or in bands, without proving the factual existence of such an investment? There must be some starting point. It would be all too easy (and oppressive (sic) for an Income-tax Officer to say to an assessee that "your background shows that you have a lot of money. You must have invested it. Now tell

SMT. SEEMA SHAH,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 211/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

1. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,99,840/- under the head 'Capital Gain’ made by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is highly, unjustified, incorrect and the appellant is liable to get benefit for investment made in the construction of another property while determining