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.

92 results for “house property”+ Section 256(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka431Delhi394Mumbai368Jaipur97Bangalore92Chennai81Ahmedabad72Cochin70Kolkata35Hyderabad34Raipur25Lucknow23Nagpur19Calcutta18Chandigarh17Telangana14Indore14Surat13Pune13SC11Agra9Guwahati7Rajkot6Patna6Jodhpur3Amritsar3Cuttack3Rajasthan3Panaji1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Varanasi1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)116Addition to Income63Deduction44Section 143(3)42Section 153C35Section 14334Disallowance33Section 9(1)(vi)32Depreciation

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

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

256 ITR (St.) 22) states that no tax is required to be deducted in respect of any amounts payable to anybody or authority or institution, whose income is unconditionally exempt under section 10. The CBDT in Circular No 4 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008 clarified in context of section 194I that the payer of rent need not deduct

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 54F22
Section 26322
Section 13221

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date [constructed, one residential house in India], then

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to Page

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2336/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2338/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 21/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2328/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2339/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1218/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2335/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2337/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 22/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1215/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1216/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

house property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer