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.

642 results for “house property”+ Section 2(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,531Mumbai1,330Bangalore642Karnataka589Chennai331Jaipur281Ahmedabad277Hyderabad233Kolkata201Chandigarh184Cochin146Indore122Pune117Telangana107Visakhapatnam102Amritsar63Raipur62Rajkot59Calcutta56Nagpur45Cuttack42Surat41Lucknow38SC37Patna24Agra24Guwahati22Jodhpur9Rajasthan7Kerala7Orissa5Ranchi3Allahabad3Panaji3Varanasi2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Addition to Income55Section 153C41Section 143(3)28Section 201(1)27Section 1125Section 1023Transfer Pricing23Section 220Section 4020

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is clearly un- sustainable in law. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 3 of 33 (10) Without prejudice to any of the aforesaid grounds, it is noted that consideration accruing cannot be evaluated as the subject matter is not in existence and therefore cannot be ascertained as on the date

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 642 · Page 1 of 33

...
Section 2(15)20
Disallowance20
Comparables/TP17

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

Housing Society (2000) 3 Mah LJ 131]. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature has introduced section 2(47)(v) read with section 45 which indicates that capital gains is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 278/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148

2[47][v] of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to enactment of Section 50-D of the Act which is with effect from 01/04/2013 and consequently, no capital gains was assessable at all from this angle of the matter as well. 10.2 Thirdly and without prejudice to the above, the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 266/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 265/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 264/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 269/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 270/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 267/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Housing Society / Purchaser has agreed to purchase the sites and paid certain sum (Clause 3 of the Agreement) in pursuance of the agreement. All these ingredients / arrangements enshrined in the impugned agreement, read as a whole, confirm the privileges of ownership without transfer of title on the respondent, that could fall under section 2(47)(v). Under section 2(47

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2012] 349 ITR 80 (Karn) in I. T. A. No. 169 of 2011 has held that introducing a word which is not there into a section amounts to legislating when Parliament has not used these words in the said section. In view of this decision, we are precluded from reading the words "in India" into section

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 957/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section