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.

35 results for “house property”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi266Mumbai117Karnataka61Calcutta51Telangana41Bangalore35Chennai27Jaipur20Ahmedabad19Kolkata17Cochin14SC12Amritsar11Nagpur7Raipur6Indore5Kerala5Surat4Hyderabad3Allahabad3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam2Gauhati2Jodhpur2Lucknow2Rajasthan1Pune1J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)112Section 9(1)(vi)32Deduction24Addition to Income24Double Taxation/DTAA17Limitation/Time-bar16Section 143(3)13Section 14810Section 10

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

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 1478
Section 54F8
Survey u/s 133A7

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The following substantial questions of law were raised before the High Court: “i) Whether the transactions in hand envisage a "transfer" exigible to tax by reference to Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? ii) Whether the Income

C L CHANDRADHARA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3264/BANG/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

house property or income from the business?.” 2.3 From the details on record, it is seen that pursuant to the High Court order (supra), the AO recommenced assessment proceedings afresh. In response to the assessee’s request, the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act were given to the assessee and the assessee

C L CHANDRADHARA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3267/BANG/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

house property or income from the business?.” 2.3 From the details on record, it is seen that pursuant to the High Court order (supra), the AO recommenced assessment proceedings afresh. In response to the assessee’s request, the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act were given to the assessee and the assessee

C L CHANDRADHARA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3266/BANG/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

house property or income from the business?.” 2.3 From the details on record, it is seen that pursuant to the High Court order (supra), the AO recommenced assessment proceedings afresh. In response to the assessee’s request, the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act were given to the assessee and the assessee

C L CHANDRADHARA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3265/BANG/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

house property or income from the business?.” 2.3 From the details on record, it is seen that pursuant to the High Court order (supra), the AO recommenced assessment proceedings afresh. In response to the assessee’s request, the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act were given to the assessee and the assessee

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

House, No.22, M G Road, Bangalore. …. Appellant. PAN AABCT 0529M Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T.A. No.967/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 19.11.2014. Date of Pronouncement : 6.2.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

ITA 318/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 234D

House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: AABCT 0529M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), PAN: AABCT 0529M Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue by : Shri C.H. Sundar

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

ITA 288/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 234D

House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: AABCT 0529M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), PAN: AABCT 0529M Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue by : Shri C.H. Sundar

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

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

properties amounting to Rs.3,05,66,25,039/-. 2.7 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that nexus has not been established between the advancing of funds in the business interest of the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed the interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the act at Rs.5,32,41,623/- for lack of commercial expediency. 2.8 The Ld.AO during

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

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from

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)

260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find from