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.

8 results for “house property”+ Section 13Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Cuttack8Bangalore8Mumbai7Jaipur7Pune6Indore4Ahmedabad3Dehradun3Jodhpur2Patna2Hyderabad1Chandigarh1Raipur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 1012Exemption6Addition to Income6Section 1545Section 143(3)5House Property5Disallowance5Section 143(1)4Section 80C4

MADHU KHATRI, SINGAPORE,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(1)Section 90

house property of Rs.5,11,944/-, income from capital gains of Rs.5,98,727/- and income from other sources of Rs.23,55,452/-. The return was processed on 30.03.2019 assessing the gross total income at Rs.6,17,80,857/- in which the salary income was assessed at Rs.5,83,14,734/-. Resultantly, there is variation of Rs.7,61,183/- under

Section 80E4
Section 404
Limitation/Time-bar4

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 10Section 10(13)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

house property of Rs.15,165/- meaning thereby the gross total income declared by the assessee of Rs.16,22,880/- and claimed the deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C, 80CC, 80CCD and Rs. 16,429/- u/s 80D, the net taxable income was shown as Rs.15,06,451/-. During the course of processing of return under section

SUNIL SHIGLI,PRESENTLY IN UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1500/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Chidambar Chikkerur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

house property wherein interest expenses are claimed as deduction. The assessee submitted the details of the deduction. Assessee was also asked further details of bank account, etc. 4. When show cause notice was issued that why the above deduction claimed by the assessee should not be withdrawn, assessee filed an updated return wherein he withdrew the claim of exemption

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 51

section 54F has been denied for the reason that the assessee have not received the site and could not construct the house property thereon. 6.3. We note that assessee had allegedly sold land of 2 Acres 20 Guntas bearing survey no. 54 at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to M/s. Astro Land Developers for a sale consideration

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 51

section 54F has been denied for the reason that the assessee have not received the site and could not construct the house property thereon. 6.3. We note that assessee had allegedly sold land of 2 Acres 20 Guntas bearing survey no. 54 at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to M/s. Astro Land Developers for a sale consideration

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

house property. Subsequently, the case was selected for a complete scrutiny for verification of the refund that disclosure of substantially lower receipts in the return vis-à-vis 26AS. On deduction from total Page 4 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 income under Chapter VIA, substantial difference in the total taxable income was also to be verified. 3.2 During the course

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

house property. Subsequently, the case was selected for a complete scrutiny for verification of the refund that disclosure of substantially lower receipts in the return vis-à-vis 26AS. On deduction from total Page 4 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 income under Chapter VIA, substantial difference in the total taxable income was also to be verified. 3.2 During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

13A of the Act. Their income is not liable to tax. Therefore, the appellant Bank did not deduct TDS on the interest income. Page 6 of 8 6.1The appellant has given reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Canara Bank reported in (2016) 386 ITR 229 (P&H). The court