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.

73 results for “house property”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai190Delhi172Bangalore73Chennai41Jaipur40Kolkata33Karnataka23Chandigarh22Ahmedabad22Lucknow22Hyderabad15Visakhapatnam13Pune11Indore10Surat10Nagpur8Agra5Panaji5Patna5Rajkot5Cochin4Jodhpur4Cuttack4Raipur4Telangana3Guwahati2Amritsar2Allahabad2SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)112Section 15478Addition to Income49Section 143(3)37Deduction35Section 9(1)(vi)32Rectification u/s 15429Section 143(1)21Section 3521

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

house property’ was accepted by the AO as such and deduction claimed u/s. 80IAB thereon was also allowed at the time of framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was accordingly completed after allowing deduction of Rs.1,14,54,343 u/s. 80IAB of the Act. After the completion of assessment, the AO initiated rectification proceedings u/s. 154

PALLASANNA KRISHNA SUBRAMANIAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

Limitation/Time-bar20
Disallowance18
House Property17

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sripada M, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act within the four year's period and same shall be decided on merit.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF having source of income from trading in derivatives and other instruments, capital gain, income from house property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54Section 54F

rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act withdrawing the deduction allowed u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of 3 plots purchased for construction of residential house and (ii) the disallowance of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act made by the AO for the 4th property

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.12.2017 passed by ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Bangalore [ld. AO] was dismissed. Page 2 of 10 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") has erred in law and fact by not appreciating that the Learned Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2336/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 22/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2339/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2337/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1215/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2328/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2335/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2338/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1216/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1218/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 21/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

154 of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the findings, reasons given by the AO for carrying out rectification are contrary to facts emerging from records and is unsustainable and untenable in law. 7. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in fastening a liability on the appellant u/s