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.

340 results for “house property”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,313Delhi1,181Jaipur359Bangalore340Ahmedabad322Karnataka316Chennai262Hyderabad206Chandigarh190Kolkata159Pune154Indore112Cochin57Raipur55Visakhapatnam50Lucknow48Nagpur44Surat42Rajkot34Calcutta34Telangana33SC33Cuttack32Amritsar27Agra19Patna15Guwahati8Varanasi7Dehradun7Rajasthan7Jodhpur6Allahabad5Ranchi4Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income63Section 153C46Penalty44Section 271(1)(c)36Deduction31Section 14825Section 27125Section 10A24House Property

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 340 · Page 1 of 17

...
20
Disallowance18
Natural Justice18

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

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)

house property Income from the property is worked out at Rs.23,54.940/- after allowing deductions. The enhancement of income is ordered. AO to issue notice under 156. Penalty

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)

property loss to be carried forward to the tune of Rs. 4,22,012/- instead of Rs. 18,87,322/- claimed in the return of income. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act was initiated for misreporting of income. During the course of penalty proceedings it was submitted that there were two housing

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 208/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 207/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 209/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

Property" within period of 3 years from date of transfer, other than new asset. It could not be stand of assessee that on one hand benefit of new asset investment can be availed for one of the residential house arising out of Joint Development agreement and on the other hand conveniently ignoring the other- residential houses resulting to assessee

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

Property" within period of 3 years from date of transfer, other than new asset. It could not be stand of assessee that on one hand benefit of new asset investment can be availed for one of the residential house arising out of Joint Development agreement and on the other hand conveniently ignoring the other- residential houses resulting to assessee

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found to be more than the taxable income and it is noticed that they are also non-filers for the purpose of Income Tax. It was found that no books of accounts are maintained and there is no record with regard to the income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found to be more than the taxable income and it is noticed that they are also non-filers for the purpose of Income Tax. It was found that no books of accounts are maintained and there is no record with regard to the income

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1076/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1077/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2734/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 80C

House Property’. ii. Addition of Capital Gains of Rs.8,36,25,000. iii. Addition u/s.50C of the Act – Rs.1,14,37,500. iv. Disallowance of claim u/s.80C of the Act – Rs.1,00,000. S.P. No.2/Bang/2018 This is evidently clear from a perusal of the grounds of appeal extracted by the learned CIT (Appeals) at para 4 on pages

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2293/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Rajeswari .S, CA
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

House Property’ as assessed by the AO. He submitted that the facts are identical in the present year and therefore, in quantum appeal, the addition made by the AO in the present year is liable to be deleted by following this Tribunal order for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in assessee’s own case and once, the quantum

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2292/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Rajeswari .S, CA
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

House Property’ as assessed by the AO. He submitted that the facts are identical in the present year and therefore, in quantum appeal, the addition made by the AO in the present year is liable to be deleted by following this Tribunal order for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in assessee’s own case and once, the quantum

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

property. Thus, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and consequently levy of penalty under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act was uncalled for. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had claimed interest on repayment of housing

BANGALORE HOUSING DEV AND INV, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)

penalty notice u/s. 270A r.w.s. 274 for under reporting of income. Since the assessee had claimed the rental income under the head income from house property

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

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

ITA 710/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazm/S.Abhilash Software & Development Centre, # 2/10, 80 Feet Road, Poojari Layout, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan.Aaifm8040N Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 251

house property’ and only such deductions as are allowable under such heads of income are to be allowed. Thus, it has resulted in enhancement of income and the CIT(A) ought to have issued show cause notice to the assessee prior to such enhancement of income u/s 251 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there is violation of principles