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(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai331 Delhi306 Bangalore97 Kolkata53 Ahmedabad51 Hyderabad29 Chennai25 Indore15 Pune13 Jaipur10 Surat6 Karnataka2 Chandigarh2 Cochin2 SC2 Kerala1 Rajkot1 Visakhapatnam1 Jodhpur1 Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96 Addition to Income68 Section 92C62 Transfer Pricing62 Comparables/TP54 Section 10A37 Disallowance23 Section 14821 Deduction21

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

144C(13) of the Act. Here in the case on hand, assessee did not challenge his Order within the stipulated time. It implies that the assessee had accepted at the first stage and this issue was also not raised before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the draft Assessment Order issued by the AO by putting his name is correct

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

section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018. 3.3 The AO accordingly assessed the LTCG at Rs. 26,91,120/-. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on a total assessed income of Rs. 28,01,210/- (LTCG of Rs.26

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

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

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 673/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT – DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1 The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that no "fresh tangible material

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

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

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

144C(13) of the Act and hence the claim made in the ITR of the Appellant needs to be restored. 12 IT(TP)A No.259/Bang/2022 M/s.Himalaya Wellness Company. 12.2 The Ld. AO’s action of arbitrary reduction of the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act also contrary to the principles of natural justice. 13

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

13 of 71 contention would be misreading the intention of the Parliament in enacting Section 292B and Section 144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

144C(13) of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the draft assessment order as per the directions of the DRP. 2.5 The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.429,75,39,850/- against the income of Rs.349,75,85,670/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. 2.6 The assessee being aggrieved

FCG SOFTWARE SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 994/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

144C(13), dated 12.09.2011 incorporating the TP adjustment of Rs.7,98,19,873/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 8. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the learned TPO has included 14 comparables which are functionally dissimilar with that of the assessee company. In this connection, he contended that the following companies

WALVOIL FLUID POWER INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR&

144C(13) and the present assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is set aside as the DRP is directed to readjudicate the objections raised by the assessee as per directions give above. We direct accordingly. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next common ground in both the appeals is against the holding

WALVOIL FLUID POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR&

144C(13) and the present assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is set aside as the DRP is directed to readjudicate the objections raised by the assessee as per directions give above. We direct accordingly. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next common ground in both the appeals is against the holding

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

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54FSection 68

property in a new residential house is eligible for claim of exemption under section 54 F of the Act, and ought to have given all the benefits and exemptions available as per the statute, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision