Search: house property

924 results for “house property”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71 Addition to Income57 Section 153A53 Section 201(1)27 Section 13226 Section 153C24 Section 10A24 Section 20122 Disallowance20 Section 19218 Deduction15 TDS14

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

ITA 712/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR-I)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 54F

26-2-2010. This property has been explained as part of Chilimbi property by the assessee. As per the purchase deed of the property, it is a separate property situated on the land of 9.5 cent with residential building bearing D. No.2-1-42 & 2-1-42/1. This might be adjacent to the Chilimbi property, which is shown in the Fixed

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

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted on 2.3.2015 at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2097/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT (DR-I)

Section 24Section 28Section 37

section 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28 to 44DA 169489092 Expenses considered under other head / Exp related to Exempt income Exp. Considered under other head-Interest : 278952800 Exp. Considered under other head-Property Tax : 133907498 Total Expenses considered under other Head/ 412860298 Exp Related to Exempt Income TOTAL ADDITION

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

26 of 31 ‘income from house property’. Since the UK property is not assessable to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ in India in the hands of the assessee, the same cannot be regarded as house property held by the assesee. If the UK property is excluded then the assessee would own one house property at Kasturba Nagar

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

26 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. Part B of the said Chapter comprises of sections providing for deduction of tax at source from various types of payments. 3.49 Section 190(1) of the Act reads as follows “Notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, the tax on income shall

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

26,000/- and the second property at 11/1 Upparalli Road, Mavalli, Bangalore measuring 1406 square feet , for Rs. 58,17,000/-. The assessee submitted that these two properties were merely registered in his name as a measure of security. The assessee submitted that during the Financial Year 2007-08, he has entered into an agreement with one Sh. Rajappa

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1647/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Elamurusu G, JCIT (DR)(ITAT)

26,983 ii) Interest paid : 15,65,010 iii) Pre construction periods interest : 1,33,509 __________ House Property or total income 1,16,64,440 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Against this, assessee is in appeal once again before us. After hearing both the parties

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 850/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

26…….If the intention s to exploit commercial property by putting up construction and letting out for the purpose of getting rental income, then notwithstanding the fact that the furniture and fittings are provided to the lessee, the income from the building fall under the head ‘Income from house property’. But if the assessee is in the business of taking

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 845/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

property on various dates during the relevant assessment year, namely, A.Y.2015-2016. The details of the same has been tabulated at page 2 of the assessment order. As per the provisions of section 54 of the I.T.Act, the assessee ought to have purchased the residential house within 2 years or constructed a residential house within 3 years from the date

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 975/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 234

26 were also provided, but nothing has been stipulated in the agreement as to what amount to be paid for availing the amenities by the lessee to the lessor. From perusal of the Agreement for Hire of Amenities, we find this agreement was executed only to provide the electricity facilities through generator for which the lessee is required

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 974/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 234

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

ITA 309/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 234Section 24Section 45Section 54F

26,06,966/- towards the acquisition of a new residential house at Falnir, Mangalore under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Smt. Rehana Abdul Jabbar, Mangaluru Page 2 of 14 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 48,00.000/- as unexplained cash credits under the facts

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

26,423/- for purchase of immovable property to Bhartiya Urban Private Limited. After obtaining the prior approval of the CIT (Intl. Taxation), Bengaluru on 29/03/2023, the order u/s. 148A(d)of the Act along with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act were served to the assessee. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed

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

26,91,120/-. The AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 15/12/2017 & invested the capital gain in the construction of residential house on a vacant land purchased in the name of his wife on 24/08/2017. The construction of the residential House

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BenglauruFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 148

house property to business income. 17. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT, 373 ITR 676 (SC) wherein it was held that if the entire income is from letting out of property, then

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 585/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 72

26,199/-, and as per Note no.50, the income consists of Rs. 54,90,00/- from rental income and Rs.1,36,199/- from other sources. The Ld.AO disputed the rental income declared by the assessee, as it was shown under the head, “Income from business”. The Ld.AO assessed the rental income under the head, ”Income from house property”, after allowing

VAIDYA NARAYANAN SUNDARAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 995/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. Balakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT (DR)

Section 2Section 22Section 23Section 23(2)Section 24Section 26

section 26 of the Act which reads as under. Page 4 of 6 6. Thus, as per the provisions u/s. 26 the share of each of the co-owner in the income from house property

Showing 1–20 of 924 · Page 1 of 47

...