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.

4,543 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929Mumbai878Jaipur336Chennai335Hyderabad274Bangalore264Chandigarh161Ahmedabad146Pune142Indore140Cochin138Kolkata100Amritsar98Visakhapatnam96Rajkot69Surat66Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow35Calcutta34Agra34Guwahati32Allahabad23Cuttack23Jodhpur18Patna18Karnataka10Telangana8Dehradun6Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4SC4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)100Addition to Income83Section 153A59Section 143(2)42Section 14741Section 14838Section 13235Section 6834Section 69A30Unexplained Investment

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

unexplained and brought them to tax. 5. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from the house property and the disallowance of house tax of Rs. 52,718/-, the assessee submitted that the details regarding the deposit of house tax had been

Showing 1–20 of 4,543 · Page 1 of 228

...
22
House Property19
Search & Seizure17

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

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 treat unexplained investments

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

unexplained investment in properties. 6. The grievance of the Department in its appeal relates to the deletion of additions while the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of addition made by the A.O. 7. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with all the additions sustained and the deletions made simultaneously in the impugned order therefore we will also decide

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

ITA 455/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

unexplained investment in properties. 6. The grievance of the Department in its appeal relates to the deletion of additions while the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of addition made by the A.O. 7. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with all the additions sustained and the deletions made simultaneously in the impugned order therefore we will also decide

SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

unexplained investment in properties. 6. The grievance of the Department in its appeal relates to the deletion of additions while the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of addition made by the A.O. 7. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with all the additions sustained and the deletions made simultaneously in the impugned order therefore we will also decide

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3153/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 68Section 69

properties. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has purchased certain pieces of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers. Out of such pieces of lands, 3 agricultural lands, which are in dispute, detailed as under: S. Nos. Survey number Amount of investments 1. 125 at Ta. Prantji Rs. 48,24,400/- 2. 124 at Ta. Prantji

ANIL KHILWANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in

ITA 632/IND/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

unexplained investment in residential houses of Rs.40,00,000/-. 3. Against this consolidated order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions and material on record, partly allowed the appeal, thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of undisclosed investment dismissed the appeal of the assessee for all the assessment years

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

ITA 3860/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

unexplained if same is already declared in wealth tax returns filed prior to the date of search. returns filed prior to the date of search. In the f In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to admit returns of circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to admit circumstances of the case, we feel

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

unexplained investment made by the assessee in two residential house properties on 24.05.2010. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that as per AIR information

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT
Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

investment in the property purchased by Sh Vishnu Kumar Nakwal. Documents referred to by the AO ,Annexure A, Exhibit -1to 60 impounded during the course of survey action at the premises of M/s F S Housing Pvt Ltd ((Ref Asst Order para 7, pg 2- 3). ii. Addition of Rs 1,06,19,558/ on account of alleged unexplained

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/JPR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

investment in Chomu House -and-Royal\nDevelopers. The same is tabulated as under:-\n\nHemant Garg\nΑ.Υ.\nParticulars\nAddition\nPage No. of\nAsst. Order\n2013-\n14\nAddition on account of unexplained\nadvances and interest receipts in firm\nM/s Royal Developers\n5049966\n2 to 9\n2014-\n15\nAddition on account of unexplained\nadvances and interest receipts in\nfirm M/s Royal

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 396/LKW/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 390/LKW/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 392/LKW/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 391/LKW/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 393/LKW/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 394/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 395/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

investment on house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 122/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

unexplained investment made in house property. 11.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), at para