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.

163 results for “house property”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai835Delhi414Bangalore163Kolkata153Chennai134Ahmedabad134Chandigarh91Hyderabad80Cochin74Jaipur66Pune58Raipur43Visakhapatnam37Amritsar29Indore24Surat19Calcutta16SC14Lucknow13Karnataka12Cuttack10Telangana10Rajkot7Nagpur7Agra6Guwahati6Jodhpur4Varanasi3Rajasthan2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 153A80Section 143(3)70Section 14A66Addition to Income64Section 2(15)53Disallowance46Section 1142Section 2(22)(e)29Section 132

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

House, No.30, 3rd Floor Deputy Commissioner of Crescent Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 001 Circle-2(2) Bengaluru PAN NO : AAGCA7614K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal was originally disposed

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

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
29
Section 6(1)(c)24
Exemption24
Deduction12
ITAT Bangalore
30 May 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 44A

dividend income. The AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was in receipt of total income exceeding Rs.50 lakhs in view of which it was mandatory to disclose the assets and liabilities as per schedule AL in the return of income. However, as the assessee failed to report any details of assets and liabilities in the return

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend of Rs.4,67,300/- as on 16.02.2006 arose because of the two payments made for purchase of house, which was intended to be purchased by the company to be provided to the Managing Director. The company ought to have debited Rs.5,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.02.2006, Rs.3,99,797/- towards registration charges

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 22Section 23

House Property.’ Thus the appellant partly succeeds in this ground.” 12. Aggrieved, the Revenue has raised the aforesaid issue before the Tribunal in the form of ground No.4. 13. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR who relied on the order of AO and the ld. counsel for the assessee who relied on the findings

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

house at Coonoor 'Rs.43,57,400). h) In respect of payments made by Gokuldas Images to Personality Limited, the corresponding voucher entries / bank statements of M/s. GIPL. i) Copy of General Ledger Report from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 under the head " General Ledger -Loans to Directors" in the group name "Loans and advances" as appearing in the books of M/s. Gokaldas

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

house at Coonoor 'Rs.43,57,400). h) In respect of payments made by Gokuldas Images to Personality Limited, the corresponding voucher entries / bank statements of M/s. GIPL. i) Copy of General Ledger Report from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 under the head " General Ledger -Loans to Directors" in the group name "Loans and advances" as appearing in the books of M/s. Gokaldas

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

deemed as let out. Therefore, these provisions cannot be applied when there is a time lag between the acquisition of the property and letting out of the property and there is no allegation of deliberate unreasonable delay in letting out of the property. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decision

B.P. KUMAR BABU vs. DCIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1658/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)

Housing Development Co. (supra), we concur with and uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had validly invoked the jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 6. Ground No.3 : Assessee has no right to appeal. 6.1 As per the details on record, it is seen

M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 525/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 234Section 36

deemed dividend that was erroneously reported by the appellant in the return of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 5. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234-B, of the Act, which under the facts

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 59 CCH 0141. m) He submitted that when the lender EPL has declared dividend and paid dividend distribution tax, there is no intention to avoid payment of dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. For this purpose, he relied

MR.HEMANTH KUMAR BOTHRA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 396/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Jason P.Boaz, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmy Karthik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the issue are as follows: The assessee, an individual, had shown his income from salary, house property