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.

99 results for “house property”+ Section 144C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai350Delhi317Bangalore99Kolkata58Ahmedabad31Chennai27Hyderabad26Jaipur13Pune9Indore8Surat6Cochin3Karnataka2Chandigarh2SC2Kerala1Rajkot1Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Addition to Income69Transfer Pricing64Section 92C62Comparables/TP54Section 10A37Section 14823Disallowance23Deduction21

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)

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

Section 9219
TP Method18
Section 144C17
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

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

house properties were already in the file or that the decision subsequently come across by him was already there would not affect the position because the information that such facts or decision existed comes to him only much later. What then, is the difference between the situations envisaged in propositions (2) and (4) of Kalyanji Maviji's case

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. 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

144C of the Act. The assessee has also, in terms of sec.144C of the Act, filed its objections before the Ld DRP. After the receipt of the directions from Ld. DRP, the assessing officer has passed the final assessment order. Except for attaching a notice of demand along with the draft assessment order, everything has been done in accordance with

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&
Section 143(3)

5), as it can be seen in the present case, are not speaking about what objections were raised by the assessee and how they have been found to be not acceptable. The DRP has simply 7 IT(TP)A No.685 & 1892/Bang/2016 M/s.Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Pvt.Ltd. observed that the TPO has given reasons for rejecting the comparables

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&
Section 143(3)

5), as it can be seen in the present case, are not speaking about what objections were raised by the assessee and how they have been found to be not acceptable. The DRP has simply 7 IT(TP)A No.685 & 1892/Bang/2016 M/s.Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Pvt.Ltd. observed that the TPO has given reasons for rejecting the comparables

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

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

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
Section 250

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. 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

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2845/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 234BSection 9

houses to promote their products and services via targeted advertising. The AO on verification of financial statement of GIPL noticed that it had credited an amount of Rs.42,57,53,347/- to the account of the assessee during the relevant assessment year without deducting tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Further it was noticed

M/S. E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 451/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. E4E Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Vakil Square, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. ……. Appellant Pan – Aaaci 6324A. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(2), Bengalore. …………..Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra T, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

144C(5) & (13) of the Act dated 26/12/2006 which included the re-computed TP adjustment of Rs.6,56,04,314/-. 5.7 Aggrieved, by the aforesaid TP adjustments made in the impugned order of asst. dated 26/12/2016 for asst year 2012-13, the assessee is now before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed Paper Books in 3 volumes, written

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

144C in the Draft Assessment Order. 2.5 Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. 3. Before DRP assessee raised objection alleging that the amount received by assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(v) r.w.Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section

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

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

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

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1 Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law a) The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(4) [‘DCIT’ or ‘AO’] / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Transfer Pricing

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