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.

18 results for “house property”+ Section 270Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi129Mumbai85Jaipur70Chandigarh52Ahmedabad29Chennai25Hyderabad22Bangalore18Pune14Kolkata11Indore11Nagpur8Rajkot5Visakhapatnam5Surat5Lucknow4Raipur3Amritsar2Guwahati2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 270A17Section 271(1)(c)11Penalty11House Property10Addition to Income10Section 143(3)7Disallowance7Section 1956Section 106Section 139

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

5
Section 2504
Section 374

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

Section 270A, and levying penalty. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the 6. appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete 7. or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

Section 270A, and levying penalty. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the 6. appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete 7. or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1175/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Rama Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

house property loss to be carried forward to the tune of Rs. 4,22,012/- instead of Rs. 18,87,322/- claimed in the return of income. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharankantha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274

housing loan, which was added to the total income of the assessee. As such, the income was determined in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act at Rs. 58,70,680/- only. As the assessee did not file original return of income, the AO initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting of income, which came to be confirmed

BANGALORE HOUSING DEV AND INV, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)

house property when the same is to be taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession, it was contended that it would not fall under the provision 270A of the Act and could not be treated as under reporting of income. 3. Anyhow in order to avoid further disputes and in order to get the immunity from

RAVI DORESWAMI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1192/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Ravi Doreswamy, Vs. Ito, No.28/1, 17Th Cross, Kanakanagar R T Nagar Ward – 5(3)(1), Post Raichur. Bangalore – 560 032, Karnataka Pan : Ajmpd 8501 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Vivekprasada P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri.Vivekprasada P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

house property of Rs.1,83,788/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Assessee has received salary income from Mindtree Ltd., and Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, information under section 133(6) of the Act was called for. As per the information received, the salary income was assessed at Rs.37

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1141/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Counsel, Kishore Kunal & ParthFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Counsel, Kishore Kunal & ParthFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1049/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

house property and income from other sources. The AO had not established that the amounts were transferred from one person to another in order to treat the said transactions as related to the assessee. 12. As admitted by the authorities, it is a loose sheet which does not contain transactions on a continuous basis. The authorities had failed to correlate

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

house property and income from other sources. The AO had not established that the amounts were transferred from one person to another in order to treat the said transactions as related to the assessee. 12. As admitted by the authorities, it is a loose sheet which does not contain transactions on a continuous basis. The authorities had failed to correlate

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

house property in the case of assessee in these three assessment years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

house property in the case of assessee in these three assessment years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI ,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

house property in the case of assessee in these three assessment years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

270A of the Act is initiated for misreporting of income as discussed by the ld. AO. 14. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has only given the general submission. No land records are given, nor agricultural income certificate. Not even the statement of calculation of agricultural income is given. The only proof agricultural income is that