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.

136 results for “house property”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi184Mumbai173Bangalore136Kolkata99Ahmedabad59Hyderabad52Chennai39Jaipur30Pune26Lucknow21Cuttack12Chandigarh9Indore8Varanasi7Surat6Agra4Telangana4Karnataka3Cochin2Jodhpur1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 10A78Section 143(3)70Transfer Pricing65Addition to Income64Comparables/TP48Section 153A45Deduction45Disallowance36Section 92C

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7

35
Section 10B34
Section 234B33
Section 4023

M/S. INTERGARDEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1292/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1292/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Chand Yadav, Advocate & Shri. Suresh Balani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Shri. Manoj Kumar, Add. CIT
Section 10BSection 144CSection 234B

House (supra) relied on by the assessee, the matter was remitted back to the AO for better investigation on the process involved therein. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Tara Agencies (292 ITR 444), AO held that processing could not be considered as manufacturing activity. As per the ITA.1292/Bang/2010

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)

10B of the Act cannot be thirst upon the assessee. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, two units of the assessee namely unit No. II and unit No. III were export oriented units and were eligible for exemption. The assessee had sustained loss in respect of unit No. I and therefore, the assessee had claimed set off, as permissible under

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

Housing Development Co. (2015) 274 CTR 122 (Kar) cited by Revenue. In its decision, in the case of IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.403/2009 dt.28.4.2016) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that notice under Section 153A/153C of the Act can be issued only if it is during a valid search when certain incriminating materials are detected

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

housing; (x) steering gears; (xi) wheels for automobiles; (xii) design engines; (xiii) steering gear assembly; (xiv) automotive air- conditioning systems; (xv) steel metal parts. The arithmetic mean of the comparable companies was 15.72% gross mark-up on cost. The Assessee’s gross mark-up on cost was 16.24% and therefore it was claimed that the price received from

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

housing; (x) steering gears; (xi) wheels for automobiles; (xii) design engines; (xiii) steering gear assembly; (xiv) automotive air- conditioning systems; (xv) steel metal parts. The arithmetic mean of the comparable companies was 15.72% gross mark-up on cost. The Assessee’s gross mark-up on cost was 16.24% and therefore it was claimed that the price received from

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 333/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

housing; (x) steering gears; (xi) wheels for automobiles; (xii) design engines; (xiii) steering gear assembly; (xiv) automotive air- conditioning systems; (xv) steel metal parts. The arithmetic mean of the comparable companies was 15.72% gross mark-up on cost. The Assessee’s gross mark-up on cost was 16.24% and therefore it was claimed that the price received from

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1811/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

Housing & Construction Ltd. v. DCIT, 348 ITR 335 (Bom), wherein it was observed as follows:- "The power of the Assessing Officer to reopen beyond a period of four years is even more restricted than when the reopening takes place within a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case of the assessee

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1810/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

Housing & Construction Ltd. v. DCIT, 348 ITR 335 (Bom), wherein it was observed as follows:- "The power of the Assessing Officer to reopen beyond a period of four years is even more restricted than when the reopening takes place within a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case of the assessee

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

property or information used on services utilized for the purposes income was outside the purview and scope of Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and consequently, not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 6.2.2 In support of the contention that royalty is chargeable to tax only on actual payments under the DTAA and hence liability

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

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. 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

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 174/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

10B. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(A) and made the submissions but the learned Commissioner(A) also did not consider the submissions of the Appellant and sustained the addition as made by the learned AO. The learned Commissioner(A) ought to have appreciated that the Writ ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 175/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

10B. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(A) and made the submissions but the learned Commissioner(A) also did not consider the submissions of the Appellant and sustained the addition as made by the learned AO. The learned Commissioner(A) ought to have appreciated that the Writ ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 176/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

10B. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(A) and made the submissions but the learned Commissioner(A) also did not consider the submissions of the Appellant and sustained the addition as made by the learned AO. The learned Commissioner(A) ought to have appreciated that the Writ ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 928/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

10B. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(A) and made the submissions but the learned Commissioner(A) also did not consider the submissions of the Appellant and sustained the addition as made by the learned AO. The learned Commissioner(A) ought to have appreciated that the Writ ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 931/BANG/2017[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

10B. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(A) and made the submissions but the learned Commissioner(A) also did not consider the submissions of the Appellant and sustained the addition as made by the learned AO. The learned Commissioner(A) ought to have appreciated that the Writ ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page