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.

225 results for “house property”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,882Delhi764Kolkata359Ahmedabad343Karnataka276Bangalore225Chennai213Chandigarh192Pune181Jaipur176Cochin126Hyderabad79Raipur70Indore67Visakhapatnam65Amritsar62Rajkot52Nagpur45Surat40Calcutta36Lucknow33Cuttack30Patna28Guwahati26Telangana21SC21Jodhpur12Varanasi7Dehradun5Ranchi3Agra3Rajasthan3Panaji3Kerala2Allahabad2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153A76Addition to Income61Section 10A42Disallowance39Section 143(3)35Section 13233Section 6828Deduction28Transfer Pricing25

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

forward Page 8 of 20 loss of the assessee as per the return of income filed which is reproduced below:- Business Long Loss from House or term owning and Assessment Date of Short Property SI. profession capital maintaining year filing term No. Loss loss loss race horses (DD/MM/Y capital

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

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...
Section 4020
Section 234B18
Section 218

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

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

loss Carried Forward: 1. Business Depreciation 55292 55292 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GROSS TOTAL INCOME : 0 DEDUCTION U/s VIA Description Gross Qualifying Deductable 80IA -Deduction to certain Industrial Undertakings engaged in infrastructure development 1. Industrial park and SEZs(RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY

M/S. TEXTRON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1228/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P.K. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

Property Rights (IPRs). This company is not only into software products as explained in the Annual Report of this company but also is engaged in the embedded product development based on current and emerging technologies such as Multi-media, Wimax, Imaging, Imaging Process etc. The company actively engaged in developing house expertise in current and emerging markets through house development

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1548/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92E

House Property would also get taxed. 32. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the DRP, the Assessee has raised ground No.10 before the Tribunal, which we have set out earlier. We have heard the submissions of the learned AR who placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of Karle International

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1175/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Rama Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

house property loss to be carried forward to the tune of Rs. 4,22,012/- instead of Rs. 18,87,322/- claimed

SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

houses the sections like 80HHC, 80-IA, etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restricting and limiting provisions like s. 80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that

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

loss against income from house property and carry forward of loss to the future years amounting to Rs.76,26,766/-. 5. The Ld.AR

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses

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

loss assessed under the head “Income from house property” of Rs.4,55,96,946 for A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.3,69,76,599 for A.Y. 2013-14 against the income assessed under the head “Income from house property” for the current A.Y.2014-15 and carry forward

M/S NETRA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) (ASSESSSS IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ACIT CIRCLE-5(1)(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 306/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

house property was set off against income from other sources to arrive at the net loss of Rs.1,37,90,289 and this was carried forward

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

forward and set off of loss under sections 72 and 74 of the Act but does not provide anything regarding intra-head set off under section 70 and inter-head set off under section 71 of the Act. The business income can be computed only after set off of business loss against the business income in the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BPL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1513/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 74

House Property”. The assessee had sold its properties at Delhi and Bengaluru and derives Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.14,88,16,483/-. The assessee had Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs.27,55,73,246/- carried forward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 70

loss is in the favour of the appellant. The Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the following cases allowed the above issue of carry forward of excess application to the subsequent year as application of income. a) ACIT Vs. Manipal Hotel & Restaurant Management College Trust (ITA No.1142/Bang/2013), dated 31.10.2014 assessment year 2010-2011. b) DCIT Vs. Manipal Academy of Higher

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S MANGALORE JESUIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 758/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 70

loss as per the computation of income for AY 2009-10 was Rs.4.23,80,704/-. The assessments attained finality. The claim of the appellant to carry forward the deficit is found to be correct. The Hon’ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the following cases allowed the carry forward of excess application to be set off against

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 54/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139Section 153ASection 44A

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 53/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139Section 153ASection 44A

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE vs. SRI SHRIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 696/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)

carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another . vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.31212016 and ITA No. 31312016, in which this Court held as under

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.)
Section 143(3)

carry forward of business loss of Rs.1,39,60,360. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the return of income was filed on 28.9.2012 declaring income of Rs.8,99,750. The case of the assessee was selected for both these assessment years and the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

M/S.BINDU AGRO PRODUCTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2081/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri H. N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 24

house property and therefore double deduction cannot be allowed as per the provisions of the Act. As regards the set up of the business it is manifest from the record and particularly the Partnership Deed dt.9.10.2009 that the acquisition of the property, development of the same and leasing out of the property is part of the business activity

M/S SHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA GYAN MANDIR TRUST ,HUBLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1), HUBLI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

ITA 39/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Mandir Trust, Income-Tax, Beside Sbi, Zonal Office, Circle-3(1), Kusagal Road, Keswapur, Hubli. Hubballi – 580 023. Pan : Aacts 4573 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234B

carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy is covered by the judgment in. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another .vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No. 313/2016, in which this Court held as under