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.

73 results for “house property”+ Section 8Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai792Delhi383Ahmedabad158Kolkata154Chennai99Bangalore73Pune45Raipur38Jaipur37Hyderabad37Indore13Cuttack13Visakhapatnam12Karnataka12Rajkot11Amritsar7Guwahati6Surat6Chandigarh6Cochin5Calcutta3Nagpur2SC2Lucknow2Jodhpur2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14A122Disallowance57Addition to Income57Deduction41Section 36(1)(viia)40Section 143(3)36Section 3527Section 36(1)(iii)25Section 80I

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

20
Depreciation20
Section 15418
Section 4017

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

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1275/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

8D(2)(iii) to the file of the AO with similar direction as given by the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1275 & 1323/Bang/2014 M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Page 12 of 25 6. The second issue considered by the AO is the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. He observed that the assessee has claimed deduction with respect

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 326/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Addl
Section 10Section 14A

section 23(1)(a)(b) the hire of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year or actual rent received is the basis of determination of annual value. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 325/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Addl
Section 10Section 14A

section 23(1)(a)(b) the hire of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year or actual rent received is the basis of determination of annual value. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

8D(2)(iii), included the investments made in Infosys BPO Ltd., that did not yield any exempt income for year under consideration. Going by the submissions of the Ld.AR, ratio laid down in Vireet Investment(supra), the disallowance then computed would be less that the disallowance voluntarily offered to tax by the assessee which is not the right course

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

8D(2)(iii), included the investments made in Infosys BPO Ltd., that did not yield any exempt income for year under consideration. Going by the submissions of the Ld.AR, ratio laid down in Vireet Investment(supra), the disallowance then computed would be less that the disallowance voluntarily offered to tax by the assessee which is not the right course

NADATHUR ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1434/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 234BSection 80G

house property’ [Rs. 1,16,85,877] and ‘income for other sources’ [Rs. 9.93.96,910]. The assessee also claimed exemption under income to the tune of Rs.3,58.19,598. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S.KAUSTHUBHA PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14A

Property development. The AO disallowed an amount of Rs.62,38,066/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D. Feeling aggrieved by the disallowance, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A), who has allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee vide the impugned order. Therefore the Revenue is in appeal before

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 23

property in the hand of the transferor and it gets vested in the hand of transferee. Therefore, in the case of transfer the right or ownership of transferor is completely extinguished and it is vested with the transferee. In the case on hand, the assessee is vested with the right to use the patented technical know how / technology under

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

M/S CONVENTION HOTELS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 562/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri. Yogesh Joijode, C.A

house property against which standard deduction is only allowable. Ground no.2 10 As regards trial run expenditure which has been treated as business loss as against treating it as a part of capital work in progress is not acceptable. The trial run expenditure is incurred by assessee was out of operations hotel act Goa during the year under consideration

HEMANT MALLAPUR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1712/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George Kmr. Hemant Mallapur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-1, Teja Villa, No.87/108, Ito Ward 5(3)(3), 3Rd Main, Bangalore. Ejipura, Bangalore. Pan : Aatpm9374L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh Kumar Jain J, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271

house property. The sale consideration received was Rs.30,00,000/-. The assessee had claimed the following deduction: 4. While computing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the AO had allowed deduction of only Rs.21,17,581/-, claimed by the assessee. The difference is on account of the following: 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee preferred

M/S VALUE POINT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result Ground.7 of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 376/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.376/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. B. T. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwears Ltd. (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal position. That would

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1410/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A
Section 80I

property developer carrying on several housing projects in the city of Bangalore and other metros in India. The addition challenged in ground No.2 by the revenue is a sum of Rs.5,06,11,025. This comprises of two sums viz., a sum of Rs.1,55,18,769 and another sum of Rs.3,50,92,256. 5. Addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 32Section 50

House, 11, Tumkur Road, tax, Bengaluru-560 022. Circle-11(5), PAN – AAACK 5854 F Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Harish V.S, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1098/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Ajeet, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate
Section 80I

House Property” and computed a loss of Rs.17,32,732/-. The said computation is as follows: Income Rental Income 4,08,22,924 Maintenance Receipt 74.84,364 Miscellaneous Income 1,38,036 Sub-Total 4,84,45,324 Expenses Millennium Tower Expenses 22,20,678 Electricity Charges 6,19,156 Maintenance Expenses 10,81,614 Security Expenses

M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1417/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 5Section 57Section 70Section 80I

housing projects on certain conditions being fulfilled. The provisions of section 80 IB (13) of the Act, that makes the provisions of section 80 IA(5) applicable to section 80 IB also, applies only ‘so far as may be’. Thus, by virtue of the fact that there is no concept of initial assessment year under section 80IB

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital Gains) and 56 (Income from other sources). Even income arising from international transactions between AE must satisfy the test of income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e., charging provisions.” Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of Chapter X cannot

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent