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 10B(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi182Mumbai171Bangalore136Kolkata94Ahmedabad59Hyderabad52Chennai39Jaipur31Pune26Lucknow21Cuttack12Chandigarh9Indore8Varanasi7Surat6Agra4Telangana4Karnataka3Cochin2Jodhpur1Himachal 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

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

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

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

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

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

8. In accordance with the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO, the AO passed the assessment order against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment on account of contract manufacture is concerned but granted advertisement and marketing adjustment of the actual expenditure incurred by the comparables which has resulted

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

8. In accordance with the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO, the AO passed the assessment order against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment on account of contract manufacture is concerned but granted advertisement and marketing adjustment of the actual expenditure incurred by the comparables which has resulted

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

8. In accordance with the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO, the AO passed the assessment order against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment on account of contract manufacture is concerned but granted advertisement and marketing adjustment of the actual expenditure incurred by the comparables which has resulted

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

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

8, wherein it was mentioned that royalty has not been subjected to TDS. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that royalty was payable in respect of export sales and was therefore not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act and in support thereof placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

10B was not filed within the due date , the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee trust. 9.1 Before proceeding further it is appropriate to take note of the section 12A of the Act as emanated by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2018 as detailed below: “Section 12A in The Income

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

8,43,640 Add: On account of recomputed 10A resultant Disallowance of ineligible 10A claim as discussed above Rs. 18,44,569 Add: Difference on account of ALP suggested By the TPO and subsequently reworked in Accordance with the directions of DRP Rs.2,49,98,778 Taxable Income from Business Rs.2,59,99,707 Add: 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)

8. R Systems International Limited 22.20 9. Sasken Communication Limited (seg.) 13.90 10. Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg.) 27.65 11. Lucid Software Limited 8.92 12. Mediasoft Solutions Private Limited 6.29 13. R S Software (India) Limited 15.69 14. SIP Technologies & Exports Limited 3.06 15. Bodhtree Consulting Limited 15.99 16. Accel Transmatics Limited (seg) 44.07 17. Synfosys Business Solutions Limited

M/S KUCHALAMBAL CHARITIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2528/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 22Section 56

8. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the Appellant and refrained from enhancing the income as determined by the AO and on the other hand he ought to have. directed the AO to allow the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 9. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the case

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LAB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C(2)

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks