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.

697 results for “house property”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,847Mumbai1,708Bangalore697Karnataka604Chennai378Jaipur362Ahmedabad360Hyderabad323Kolkata282Pune200Chandigarh181Indore171Cochin163Surat121Telangana114Visakhapatnam109Amritsar85Raipur74Calcutta56Nagpur48Lucknow46Cuttack44Rajkot41SC37Agra35Guwahati30Patna26Jodhpur19Kerala11Varanasi9Rajasthan7Allahabad6Ranchi5Panaji4Orissa4Jabalpur3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 153C46Section 143(3)38Section 153A33Section 13229Section 201(1)27Section 1023Section 2(15)22Section 220

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted on 2.3.2015 at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 697 · Page 1 of 35

...
Cash Deposit17
Disallowance17
Transfer Pricing15

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

section 24(b) is claimed towards interest on housing loan, then the said interest on housing loan cannot be added to the cost of acquisition u/s 48 while computing capital gains. It was submitted that the residential property

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

ITA 2097/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2018AY 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

48,640/- and also claimed deduction to municipal taxes of Rs. 4,19,40,161/- and deduction u/s. 24 (a) & (b) it was concluded that the net income from the house property was Rs. 2,05,13,135/-. It was observed by the Assessing Officer from the financial that on the one hand the assessee was claiming this standard deduction

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

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 44A

48,39,310 3,18,09,813 3 Keppel Purvankara Developers 6324825 6324825 4 Property @ Bull Temple Road 3,82,87,162 3,82,87,162 5 Property @ JP Nagar 2,67,07,891 2,67,07,891 6 Property@ OMBR Layout 19,56,591 19,56,591 3.2 The AO accepted the details of immovable properties furnished

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 54

properties are purchased by the assessee, the option is available with the assessee to claim benefit under Section 54 in respect of the residential house purchased for the assessee's own residence. On this point the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nathu Hansraj 105 ITR 43 is relevant wherein

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 23(1)(c)Section 50C

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1047/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, D.R
Section 45Section 48Section 54Section 54F

section 54 of the Act. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available on sale of any capital asset other than residential house. The assessee’s request for allowing claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was denied by the A.O. for the reason that the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 942/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

48°/o. All the four flats are situate in a residential building. These four residential flats constitute a residential house" for the purpose of Section 54. Pro-it on sale of property

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 850/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 845/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

ITA 309/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 234Section 24Section 45Section 54F

48,00.000/- as unexplained cash credits under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234-B and 234-D of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCIT
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(3)

48°/o. All the four flats are situate in a residential building. These four residential flats constitute a residential house" for the purpose of Section 54. Pro-it on sale of property

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 54FSection 54F(1)

48°/o. All the four flats are situate in a residential building. These four residential flats constitute a residential house" for the purpose of Section 54. Pro-it on sale of property

SHRI.T.A.V.GUPTA ,TURUVEKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 54F

48°/o. All the four flats are situate in a residential building. These four residential flats constitute a residential house" for the purpose of Section 54. Pro-it on sale of property

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

48,46,006/- 2. The assessee filed the following additional evidence along with application dated 5.9.2019 before us. “Sharing agreement dated 26.10.2016 between the assessee and developer regarding property No.123, Infantry Road, Bengaluru” 3. However, at the time of hearing, the assessee not pressed admission of additional evidence. Accordingly, additional evidence are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.1

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

House was completed on 16/07/2022 and accordingly submitted that the condition of the section 54 of the Act was fulfilled by the assessee. It is submitted that the investment in new property was made in the name of assessee’s wife could not be a reason for disallowance of deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the Assessee. The same

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 54F

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

ITA 999/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 234Section 50C

48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority Page 4 of 21 under sub-section (1) exceeds

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

48,51,630/- received towards renting of trailers, subletting of exhibition space are taxed under the head income from house property. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession. 5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made