Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,366 results for “house property”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,663 Delhi3,504 Bangalore1,366 Chennai1,139 Kolkata758 Hyderabad552 Jaipur549 Karnataka473 Ahmedabad439 Pune347 Chandigarh279 Indore180 Cochin169 Telangana167 Surat135 Rajkot116 Raipur106 Visakhapatnam98 Nagpur93 Lucknow88 Calcutta69 Amritsar68 SC64 Cuttack63 Patna49 Agra47 Jodhpur40 Guwahati33 Dehradun23 Varanasi23 Kerala17 Rajasthan16 Allahabad15 Panaji13 Jabalpur10 Ranchi7 Orissa5 Andhra Pradesh2 Gauhati2 Punjab & Haryana2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 J&K1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ANIL R. DAVE L. NAGESWARA RAO1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153A92 Addition to Income67 Section 143(3)56 Section 13241 Section 6826 Section 26325 Section 10A24 House Property19 Section 153C18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1039/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BenglauruFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 148

properties and the same is to be assessed as income from business instead of income from house property or income

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,366 · Page 1 of 69

...

ITA 2097/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT (DR-I)

Section 24Section 28Section 37

property income) or against business income (in case it is a case of income from profits of business or capital gains (as cost of acquisition) as the case may be. 5.5 In this case, the appellant has consistently been claiming income as 'income from House

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

property” instead of business income as disclosed by the assessee. The A.O. further held that depreciation is not allowable since the income has to be assessed under the head “income from house

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 850/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

business or profession”. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the income derived by the assessee by letting out properties to tenants is akin to any landlord tenant relationship therefore, the rental income from properties should be treated as income from house

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 845/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

business or profession”. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the income derived by the assessee by letting out properties to tenants is akin to any landlord tenant relationship therefore, the rental income from properties should be treated as income from house

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

business of renting out properties and as\nsuch, the income from maintenance charges received has direct\nnexus with the property and derived from the property only and\nhence the amount received as per the lease deed including the\nmaintenance charges needs to be considered towards letting out of\nthe premises and taxed under the head “income from house

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 202/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

business income. Thus, in the light of CBDT Circular, the benefit of deduction available u/s. 80IAB of the Act could not have been denied to the assesse on the pretext the income has been offered for taxation under the head ‘income from house property

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1209/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Business Income’ for assessment as ‘income from house property’. After recording reasons to this effect, the Assessing Officer issued notices

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1212/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Business Income’ for assessment as ‘income from house property’. After recording reasons to this effect, the Assessing Officer issued notices

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 975/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

property and ITA No.974, 975/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 8 claimed it to be the income as business income, but the Assessing Officer has assessed it as an income from house

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 974/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

property and ITA No.974, 975/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 8 claimed it to be the income as business income, but the Assessing Officer has assessed it as an income from house

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1647/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Elamurusu G, JCIT (DR)(ITAT)

house property has to be assessed as a business income or an income from house property. The contentions of the assessee

M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 477/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

property. The assessee has also treated certain income received on account of providing certain services to lessee as business income. But the AO has treated the entire receipt of income as income from house

SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1286/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Sharadama Enterprises, Station Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pan:Abofs 5233 J Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Smt.Rukmani Attri, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 40

house property on account of lease as income from business instead of income from house property. The learned AR of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ANJANEYA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2509/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarthe Income-Tax Officer, Warad-1(1)(2), Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Anjaneya Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Aravindranath Reddy, C.A Date Of Hearing : 20-3-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -3-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Aravindranath Reddy, C.A

business income. According to the assessing officer, since the income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income. He, thus, held that it would be treated as income from house

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

House Property". Denial of long-term capital loss of Rs 2,725,693 on sale of a painting 19. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by denying the claim of long-term capital loss on sale of a painting of Rs 2,725,693 without appreciating the submissions furnished by Appellant in support

M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 944/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri A.Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154

Business Income’ for assessment as ‘ Income from House Property’ . After recording reasons to this effect, the Assessing Officer issued notices

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 585/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 72

income of house property under the head business income by the assessee and that the Ld.AO wrongly presumed that the income

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

House Property’ or ‘Income from Business.’ The Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that the income shall be treated as ‘Income

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 712/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR-I)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

property occupied by the assessee for the purpose of any business carried on by him, Annual value is not to be computed for taxing under the head Income from house