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 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,791Delhi2,338Bangalore819Chennai528Jaipur517Hyderabad442Ahmedabad356Pune313Chandigarh268Kolkata266Indore201Cochin185Surat119Rajkot110Visakhapatnam101Raipur99Nagpur92Amritsar89SC81Lucknow80Patna69Agra57Jodhpur41Cuttack39Guwahati35Allahabad18Dehradun18Jabalpur12Varanasi12Ranchi8Panaji7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income11Search & Seizure9Section 69B8Section 132A8Section 1325Section 54F5Section 143(3)4Section 2504Section 143(3)(ii)

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

section 69. Could it be validly contended that the department has merely to allege that an assessee has made an investment, say, in 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

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

4
Section 153A4

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri. Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri. A. K. Singh
Section 54(2)Section 54BSection 54F

property within one year from the date of transaction. The AO has further held that the amount advanced to M/s Arslan Developers was not a utilization as per sec. 54F of the Act and the amount returned by the builder was kept in saving account of the appellant before being paid to M/s APIL. A copy of the agreement made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Chand Adv. & Sh. Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

section 69. Could it be validly contended that the department has merely to allege that an assessee has made an investment, say, in house property or in shares or in bonds, 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

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/VNS/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ramit Kochar

Section 132ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 153ASection 250

house property and also derives income from commission by doing the business of LIC Agent. The AO observed that the assessee is filing return of income from the assessment year(ay): 2006-07. The AO also observed that the assessee has made no withdrawal as household expenses , to meet out the basic needs of his family. The assessee was asked

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,,AZAMGARH vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 14/VNS/2020[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Ramit Kochar

Section 132ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 153ASection 250

house property and also derives income from commission by doing the business of LIC Agent. The AO observed that the assessee is filing return of income from the assessment year(ay): 2006-07. The AO also observed that the assessee has made no withdrawal as household expenses , to meet out the basic needs of his family. The assessee was asked

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 15/VNS/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ramit Kochar

Section 132ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 153ASection 250

house property and also derives income from commission by doing the business of LIC Agent. The AO observed that the assessee is filing return of income from the assessment year(ay): 2006-07. The AO also observed that the assessee has made no withdrawal as household expenses , to meet out the basic needs of his family. The assessee was asked

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/VNS/2020[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ramit Kochar

Section 132ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 153ASection 250

house property and also derives income from commission by doing the business of LIC Agent. The AO observed that the assessee is filing return of income from the assessment year(ay): 2006-07. The AO also observed that the assessee has made no withdrawal as household expenses , to meet out the basic needs of his family. The assessee was asked

ACIT, CC, VARANASI vs. M/S VATIKA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 132Section 153CSection 69B

Properties and Infrastructure Ltd (APIL) had developed a township named M/s Ansal API. In the above said township two housing projects named “Urban Woods I” and “Urban Woods II” were proposed to be executed by the assessees herein, viz., M/s. D.S. Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd respectively. It is the submission of Shri Anil Kumar Tulsiani

ACIT, CC,, VARANASI vs. M/S D.S. INFRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD.,, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 132Section 153CSection 69B

Properties and Infrastructure Ltd (APIL) had developed a township named M/s Ansal API. In the above said township two housing projects named “Urban Woods I” and “Urban Woods II” were proposed to be executed by the assessees herein, viz., M/s. D.S. Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd respectively. It is the submission of Shri Anil Kumar Tulsiani

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/VNS/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment

PRAMOD KUMAR,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 84/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment

KANCHAN SARRAF,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 85/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 69B

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment