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.

698 results for “house property”+ Section 42clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,904Mumbai1,724Bangalore698Karnataka602Chennai402Jaipur299Hyderabad273Ahmedabad258Kolkata220Chandigarh163Surat115Telangana112Indore103Pune98Cochin85Raipur70Amritsar68Rajkot64Visakhapatnam60Calcutta59Nagpur52Lucknow42SC39Cuttack35Agra27Guwahati24Patna22Jodhpur8Allahabad8Rajasthan8Orissa7Kerala7Jabalpur5Varanasi5Panaji2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 143(3)52Section 153C42Section 10A24Section 153A24Section 2(15)21Section 220Deduction19Section 4018

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

property as per the\nprovisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the notional value of\nRs.28,07,780/- (8.5% of Rs.3,30,32,716/-) is adopted as annual\nvalue for the purpose of computing deemed income from house\nproperty and accordingly computed the income as below:\n\nALV as discussed above\n28,07,780/-\nLess 30% for Repairs

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

Showing 1–20 of 698 · Page 1 of 35

...
Section 1117
Disallowance17
Exemption14
ITA 2097/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
14 Feb 2018
AY 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

house property', the appellant did not claim depreciation allowance under section 32 in respect of the buildings Let out on rent. The said depreciation was also not claimed Page 7 of 12 in computing the income/Loss under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. Assuming without admitting that the entire rental income is assessable under the head 'Profits and gains

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

Housing Society (2000) 3 Mah LJ 131]. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature has introduced section 2(47)(v) read with section 45 which indicates that capital gains is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law.”(emphasis

BHAGYA MAHANTESH KHODANPUR ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1365/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur, Income Tax Officer, Indu Arcade, Vithoba Galli, Ward-2(1), Durgadbail, Vs. Hubballi. Hubballi-580020. Pan No : Apxpk0150P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 28/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2025 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Addition Of Rs. 4,42,500/- Is Bad In Law & 2. Liable To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 250

42,492/- as deduction from income from house property. It is also observed from pages 71 & 72 of the paper book that KSFC has certified the amount of interest paid by assessee on account of loan. It is observed that the said Certificate was available with the Assessing Officer on 24/10/2017 ie., during the assessment proceedings. 9. Admittedly, the assessee

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

section 54F of the Act and in this context examine Page 6 of 10 whether the assessee owned more than 2 properties and the nature of the property owned by the assessee. (2) Whether the sale of the 7 residential plots by the assessee was in the nature of adventure, in the nature of trade and income from the sale

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery, plant or equipment. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received as sub letting charges at a trade exhibition is already shown by the Assessee by netting off the expenditure. Therefore, there is a double addition of all the above

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1692/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

M/S SOBHA GLAZING & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1630/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide orders dt.15.3.2013 and 5.3.2014 wherein the income was determined at Rs.1,94,91,252 and Rs.1,94,52,163 for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. While the assessee had declared the income earned from letting out of commercial spaces, amenities and maintenance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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 property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer

SR. N PRATHAP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 751/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

house property, business, capital gains and other sources. The assessee filed its return of income for year under consideration on 30/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs.62,61,362/-. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) was issued along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response to statutory notices, representatives of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

house property” instead the deduction under section 11(1)(a) of the Act was computed on the gross receipts. 6.2 The Ld.AR thus submitted that, assessee in the revised return claimed deduction of ₹72,66,663/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, in the application filed under section 154 of the Act, as against the claim

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)

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 of the Act was initiated for misreporting of income. During the course of penalty proceedings it was submitted that there were two housing loans and the aggregate

PRATHAP KUMAR N ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesssee is partly allowed

ITA 584/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 Shri Prathap Kumar N, No. 32/2, 5Th Main Road, Vs. Acit, Circle – 5 (2) (1), Chamrajpet, Bangalore Bangalore – 560018. Pan: Adzpk5497K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Prasanth G. S., C. A. Revenue By : Shri M. K. Biju, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Shree Prasanth G. S., C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju, Addl. CIT DR
Section 54F

property and these nine unsold flats and therefore, as per proviso a (i) to section 54F (1), the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Now, we reproduce the relevant proviso below sub section (1) to section 54F for ready reference. The same reads as under:- Page 3 of 6 “Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO has been entrusted a work of enquiry in respect of joint development agreement entered by the assesses coming under the jurisdiction of Range-7, Bangalore. During the course of enquiry proceedings, it is found that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement (JDA) dated 12.05.2004 with M/s.SJR Builders, No.49