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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad9Jaipur7Amritsar6Chennai5Mumbai4Bangalore4Delhi4Lucknow4Pune2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jabalpur1Indore1Nagpur1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 271D9Section 269S8Section 271E5Penalty4Section 543Exemption3Section 143(3)2Section 273B2Section 2502Section 269T

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

Housing Development Co. v. Addl. CIT reported in [2010] 001 ITR (Trib) 0165 • CIT v. Balaji Traders reported in 303 ITR 312 (Mad) • OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) • CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., reported in 285 ITR 221 (Mad) • Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A B Shanthi reported

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

2
Addition to Income2

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 54

property otherwise than\nby an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic\nclearing system through a bank account, if the amount of such loan or\ndeposit or such specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more.\nIt is also proposed to amend section 269T of the Income-tax Act so as to\nprovide that no person

RAKESH GANAPATHY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

property whether or not the\ntransfer takes place.\nIt is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D\nand section 271E to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended\nprovisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively.\nThese amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015.\n[Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70]\nPage

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54

property whether or not the transfer takes place. It is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D and section 271E to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended provisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively. These amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015. [Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70] Sri Gangadhara Shetty, Mangalore Page