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.

105 results for “house property”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai230Delhi213Bangalore105Chennai71Ahmedabad64Jaipur60Lucknow39Hyderabad39Kolkata39Calcutta35Chandigarh32Cuttack28Pune27Karnataka24Amritsar17Indore16Raipur14Cochin13Visakhapatnam10Telangana9Agra6Rajkot6Varanasi6SC5Surat5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Dehradun1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A129Section 11123Section 2(15)108Section 153A85Exemption70Addition to Income60Section 13243Section 11(1)(a)31Charitable Trust27Disallowance

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)

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub- clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

ITA 394/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

26
Section 69B25
Section 153C24
ITAT Bangalore
11 Oct 2021
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

property at market rates and charges interest for belated payments of the installments by the buyers. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) thus held that assessee is squarely hit by the proviso to section 2 (15) and section 13(8) for assessment years under consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) held that assessee cannot claim exemption as envisaged under section

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

ITA 806/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

property at market rates and charges interest for belated payments of the installments by the buyers. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) thus held that assessee is squarely hit by the proviso to section 2 (15) and section 13(8) for assessment years under consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) held that assessee cannot claim exemption as envisaged under section

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

12A of the Act. It filed its return of income on 27/09/2015 declaring total income at ‘nil’, after claiming deduction under section 11(1)(a) of the act on the surplus. It had declared its income under the income from house property

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

section 12A(ab) of the Act. ii. On the issue of loan obtained by trustees of the trust from banks and Finance Companies , which was repaid from the sources of the trust, the assessee submitted that trustees have obtained loan from Standard Chartered Bank as assessee trust was not eligible for borrowing from the bank. The said loans from banks

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1087/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 277/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

12A, as the Commissioner thought it fit to refuse to condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 274/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

12A, as the Commissioner thought it fit to refuse to condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

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

12A was also granted. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to ,have appreciated in the circumstances that denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act was opposed to law and uncalled for and accordingly he ought to have refrained from sustaining the order of the AO in this regard. 6. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1968/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1969/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1971/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1970/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

House Manipal Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA2976P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

DR. T M A PAI FOUNDATION ,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

House Manipal HO Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATD1327M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

property. Even, the extent of cash found is supported by the balances as per books of accounts of the assessee. Evidence was also produced before the learned PCIT to substantiate the said position. M/s. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalore Page 12 of 50 Hence, the question of diversion of the funds of the trust does