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.

25 results for “house property”+ Section 244Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai80Delhi47Jaipur26Bangalore25Karnataka21Ahmedabad16Chandigarh9Kolkata6Visakhapatnam5Indore4Hyderabad2Raipur2Rajkot2SC2Pune1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14337Section 153C20Deduction17Section 15316Disallowance13Section 27112Section 15411Depreciation11Addition to Income9

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1056/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250Section 54Section 54F

house property within the time prescribed under section 54F of the Act and thereby made a valid claim, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the payments made to the vendor was a commercial transaction for sale of property with a consideration and not one out of love and affection

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2508
Section 10A5
Section 54F5

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

house by the Assessee and that it was not purchased. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal never expressed any doubt as to what was transferred was “Technical Know- how”. The Tribunal only observed that if the costs incurred to develop technical know-how were already claimed as revenue expenses than the gains arising as a result of sale thereof will

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

244A as consequential. Total tax effect 7,48,46,006/- 2. The assessee filed the following additional evidence along with application dated 5.9.2019 before us. “Sharing agreement dated 26.10.2016 between the assessee and developer regarding property No.123, Infantry Road, Bengaluru” 3. However, at the time of hearing, the assessee not pressed admission of additional evidence. Accordingly, additional evidence are dismissed

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 209/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 208/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 207/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

M/S SAFRAN ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result corporate grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 234D

Property No.8/2 & Circle-6(1)(1), 9, Ambalipura Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Varthur Hobli, Begaluru East Taluk, Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru-560 102. PAN – AAFCS 9003 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07-04-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 251/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 250/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 253/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 245/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 254/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , UDUPI , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 255/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 252/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 248/BANG/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 243/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

House, Manipal – 576104. PAN. AACCM2741B Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, Udupi. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. A. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 31 – 07 – 2019 Date of pronouncement : 20– 09 – 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these seventeen appeals are filed by the assessee and it includes