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.

1,664 results for “house property”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi414Mumbai320Bangalore224Jaipur152Hyderabad139Pune62Chennai56Rajkot48Kolkata47Chandigarh39Amritsar27Ahmedabad22Guwahati16Agra14Visakhapatnam14Indore12Lucknow10Nagpur10Patna8Jodhpur7Cochin6Surat5Allahabad3Ranchi3Raipur2Telangana2Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 13251Search & Seizure45Section 6944Section 143(3)40Survey u/s 133A40Section 133A36Section 153A33Section 153C32Section 139(1)

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act carried out on 19.02.2021 in the case of the appellant, statement of the appellant Dr. Om Prakash Bissu was recorded wherein, in response to question no. 25 & 26, he admitted that construction of hospital building was being carried out during the year under consideration. Since the appellant failed to submit the bills & vouchers

Showing 1–20 of 1,664 · Page 1 of 84

...
30
Section 14728
Deduction10

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

House no 834, Sector 21, Panchkula. The documents thus have been found and seized from the business premises of the assessee firm and the panchnama has been drawn accordingly. We are therefore of the considered view that the search has been duly authorised, initiated and conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. As far as survey operations u/s

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

House no 834, Sector 21, Panchkula. The documents thus have been found and seized from the business premises of the assessee firm and the panchnama has been drawn accordingly. We are therefore of the considered view that the search has been duly authorised, initiated and conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. As far as survey operations u/s

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

house property as received by the appellant on account of rent from Hewett Road Property and property situated at Katra, Allahabad, treating the same as business income which is against the evidence on record filed by the appellant. 8. Because in case of treating the rental income as business income of the applicant the authority's below were bound

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 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 meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 147

house property (iv) (iv) Unverified Unverified and and non-genuine non genuine expenses expenses – ₹62,505/- (v) (v) (v) Interest Interest Interest on on on refund refund refund not not not offered offered offered – ₹1,461/- (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A – ₹10,000/- Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal 2.3 In appeal

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

133A on 06-10-2017. Therefore, the suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. The Ld. AO has no material against the contention of the assessee except presumption and assumption. The human probability cannot supersede the evidence found as the result of survey. The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the books of accounts by ignoring the fact that there

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

survey u/s 133A of the Act cannot be used for the purpose of assessment which have no evidential value and any admission mad during the statement recorded on that count itself cannot be basis for addition. On this count also, addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, ground Nos.2 to 2.2 are allowed. 6. Next Ground No.3 of the assessee is with

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

House, Plot No.25/1 Vs. Joiser Park Estate B/H. Atul Petrol Pump Jamnagar 361 001. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 2 PAN : AIQPG 1300 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

House, Plot No.25/1 Vs. Joiser Park Estate B/H. Atul Petrol Pump Jamnagar 361 001. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 2 PAN : AIQPG 1300 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025

TURAB ALI BOHRA,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 704/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 69A

Survey u/s 133A has no evidentiary value and any\nadmission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Reliance\nplaced CIT v. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) (HC). Affirmed by Apex\nCourt in, CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 210 Taxman 248(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) /\n(2012) 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC).\nHence

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6677/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri I.P. BansalFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 133A(3)(ia)Section 153A

survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee entity at their two business addresses at Chiranjivi Tower, which was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by preparing an inventory of impounded documents, etc. ITAs No.6675, 6676 & 6677/Del/2017 10. Per contra, from the copy of warrant of authorization u/s 132 of the Act dated 16.08.2011 and panchnama dated

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6675/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri I.P. BansalFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 133A(3)(ia)Section 153A

survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee entity at their two business addresses at Chiranjivi Tower, which was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by preparing an inventory of impounded documents, etc. ITAs No.6675, 6676 & 6677/Del/2017 10. Per contra, from the copy of warrant of authorization u/s 132 of the Act dated 16.08.2011 and panchnama dated

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6676/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri I.P. BansalFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 133A(3)(ia)Section 153A

survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee entity at their two business addresses at Chiranjivi Tower, which was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by preparing an inventory of impounded documents, etc. ITAs No.6675, 6676 & 6677/Del/2017 10. Per contra, from the copy of warrant of authorization u/s 132 of the Act dated 16.08.2011 and panchnama dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NARESH JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to\ncost

ITA 374/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)

133A(3)(iii) (or even u/s 131 on oath) admitting income\nbut ignoring the impounded documents found and the explanation furnished\nthereon with the supporting evidences should be ignored, can not be\naccepted. We are thus not in agreement with the dissenting findings\nrecorded by the CIT(A) on this aspect.\nFor the above reasons, the modified ground of appeal

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3929/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

133A, in his case, followed by the local enquiries and elaborate discussion by the learned assessing officer , learned assessing officer held that cash deposit of Rs. 13,48,58,000/– is treated unexplained income of the asessee as the assessee failed to adduce any evidences regarding the nature and source of cash entries in his bank account. According

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VISHNU GOEL, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3930/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

133A, in his case, followed by the local enquiries and elaborate discussion by the learned assessing officer , learned assessing officer held that cash deposit of Rs. 13,48,58,000/– is treated unexplained income of the asessee as the assessee failed to adduce any evidences regarding the nature and source of cash entries in his bank account. According