Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

97 results for “house property”+ Section 144C(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai329 Delhi305 Bangalore97 Kolkata54 Ahmedabad51 Hyderabad30 Chennai24 Pune15 Indore15 Jaipur11 Surat6 Chandigarh5 Karnataka2 Cochin2 SC2 Kerala1 Rajkot1 Lucknow1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96 Addition to Income67 Section 92C62 Transfer Pricing62 Comparables/TP54 Section 10A37 Disallowance23 Deduction21 Section 14819

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

house property of Rs.59,535/- and interest from deposits in banks of Rs.60,557/- along with NIL capital gains after claim of cost of acquisition & deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee in his computation of income had also claimed deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act and thus declared total income of Rs.1,10,090/-.The AO while completing

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

144C(13) of the Act dated 12.12.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee had sold his house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 and also made a booking for construction

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

144C(13) r.w.s 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the returned income of the Assessee at Rs. Nil/- is assessed at a loss of Rs. 161,63,03,274/-. The Assessee is aggrieved with that and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos. 261 & 777/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 18 2. In the Assessment Order, there

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

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2015-16 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee is engaged in different types of business activities, viz., software development services and IT services; manufacture of Vanaspati/Hydro generated oils; toilet soaps; lighting products; pharmaceuticals & Neutraceutical products; leather

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

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.03.2021. IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 110 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring

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)

144C(1) of the Act. In the draft assessment order so passed the Ld.AO:- • disallowed depreciation on computer software at Rs.7,46,162/- for non-deduction of TDS; • disallowed payments on which TDS was not deducted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.7,46,162/-; • disallowed professional charges for non-deduction of TDS under section

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 607/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen non-resident

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 608/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen non-resident

ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 38/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.38/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT

144C of the Act on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in th ct on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in the hands ct on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in th of assessee: 9. Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment as as as per per per order order order under under under section section section 92CA: 92CA: 92CA: Rs.5,27,12,412/-; Disallowance

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

10 of 71 143 (3). It is not in dispute that assessment passed under Section 143 (3) is a final assessment, after duly hearing the assessee and perusing the records. 29. However, curiously, the error that had crept in by mentioning of the incorrect Section in the proceeding was found out by the Revenue and, therefore, a corrigendum dated

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

144C(13) of the Act, meaning thereby, he has intended to comply with the directions issued by Ld DRP. However, by inadvertence, he has omitted to incorporate the directions in the final assessment order, which was duly rectified by passing a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. There should not be any dispute that the Act visualizes committing

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

144C of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2014 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.115,63,22,141/- in view of the aforesaid TP adjustments and disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 50 3. The assessee initially filed XVI grounds of appeal. However it subsequently filed

EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 792/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

144C on 10-5-2013 determining the total loss at Rs.181,03,33,672/-. On perusal of the assessment records, the CIT, LTU, ITA.792/Bang/2016 Page - 2 Bengaluru , observed that the loss in the Policyholders account is set off against the surplus of Shareholders a/c amounting to Rs.10,52,02,173/- which is against the provisions of the Act and hence

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2929/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2930/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

RAVIKUMAR TIRUPATI PARTHASARATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Housing Complex, of Income Tax, Arekere Layout, Circle 2(1), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 076. PAN: AENPR 7573N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj, CA Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against

M/S. CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

144C(13) of the IT Act, 1961. 25. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer (`TPO') has erred in law and facts by excluding Infomile Technologies Limited, a Software development company, without citing any reason justifying its exclusion, in its Order dated 30/Oct/2018. 26. The Learned AO/ TPO while passing the final AO order/ Order giving effect to DRP directions erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S LOGICA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal and cross objection filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 505/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144C

144C of the act filed by assessee and revenue on following grounds of appeal: ITA (TP)A No. 626/B/2016 (assessee’s appeal) The grounds mentioned herein are without prejudice to one another: 1. That the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("the learned Assessing Officer" or "the learned AO") pursuant

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

properties owned by the Appellant by failing to appreciate that such registrations are obtained in compliance with the statutory preconditions for sale of the products. 11.5 The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate that the alleged associated enterprises are acting as distributors and are paying the purchase consideration to the appellant in respect thereof leaving nothing else to be paid