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.

6 results for “house property”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi143Mumbai71Jaipur26Chennai24SC12Amritsar11Nagpur7Hyderabad7Raipur6Bangalore6Indore5Cochin5Ahmedabad4Kolkata4Allahabad3Jodhpur2Lucknow2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Surat1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 37(1)6Section 80I5Section 143(3)4Section 1474Section 683Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2Section 142

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 to the DVO for evaluating cost of construction and in turn the cost of the properties was determined at higher figure as against the cost declared by the firm as cost of construction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of difference as income from undisclosed sources as investment in cost of construction of the properties. The Tribunal set aside

Deduction2
Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2

M/S. SILICON ESTATES,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 25/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. Pan: Abefs6150N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2013-14 Whereby & Whereunder The Rejection Of The Claim U/S. 80Ib(10) Of Rs.4,03,40,492/- For A.Y. 2013-14 Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Properties (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra), referred to supra, whereunder it came to be held that distinction drawn to be put forward by the Revenue with regard to completion certificate vis-a-vis occupancy certificate would not dilute the legal position, we dismiss these appeals.” Page 12 of 17 9. In the above matter, it was found that the certificate

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

House and for the purpose of selling the major portions of the said building in the form of flats to various customers. The assessee got the original building plans sanctioned and commenced the constructions. The assessee had no right to make deviations from the sanctioned plan or to continue the construction after the sanction had lapsed. Any constructions thus made

SHRIRAM CHITS (KARNATAKA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA 1281/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Chetan R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

property income of Rs.26,632. Against the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed objections vide letter dated 20.12.2020. The assessee raised objections regarding the reopening of assessment as well as allowability of adjustment of bid loss made vide memo of income. The objections of the assessee was dismissed and the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS (KARNATAKA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA 1314/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Chetan R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

property income of Rs.26,632. Against the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed objections vide letter dated 20.12.2020. The assessee raised objections regarding the reopening of assessment as well as allowability of adjustment of bid loss made vide memo of income. The objections of the assessee was dismissed and the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Inder Paul Bansal &
Section 68

260A of the Act. Further\nafter set aside, the appeal filed by the revenue the appeal has\nbeen closed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as per order dated\n03-11-2023. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Ld. CIT(A)\nfor upholding the addition does not exists and is not\napplicable.\nb) CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi