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.

989 results for “section 68”+ Section 2(47)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,683Mumbai2,286Bangalore989Karnataka656Chennai639Ahmedabad583Jaipur480Hyderabad420Kolkata368Chandigarh258Indore217Cochin213Pune199Visakhapatnam128Raipur106Surat97Agra97Telangana94Nagpur86Rajkot76Cuttack75Lucknow72Calcutta63Allahabad52SC50Guwahati49Amritsar41Ranchi36Jodhpur18Patna16Dehradun15Varanasi12Rajasthan10Orissa9Jabalpur8Kerala5Panaji4Uttarakhand3K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 143(3)46Section 153C44Section 14835Section 133A34Section 6829Section 201(1)27Disallowance26Section 13222Deduction

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

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and computed the short term capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked to produce details of bills/vouchers and documentary proof for the developmental expenditure charged to the P&L account and consequently statement u/s 133A of the Act from the assessee with the declaration

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 989 · Page 1 of 50

...
22
Section 4020
Survey u/s 133A20

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

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

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

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 45Section 53A

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu (supra) will have no application and capital gain arises only in AY 2008-09 Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 264/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 267/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 269/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 266/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 270/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 265/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

2(47)(v); b) That the subject contract was a 'works contract' but not 'sale contract' as there is no element of "transfer" between the developer and the respondent society; c) That the works to be carried out by the developer as per the MOU like procuring the land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, culverts, laying roads

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

V. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) (xlv) 5.17 The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in this case the assessee company has proved the identity of the investor with confirmation letters from the investor. Further the genuineness of the transaction is established as assessee company has furnished that all transactions are though banking channel, FIRC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

V. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) (xlv) 5.17 The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in this case the assessee company has proved the identity of the investor with confirmation letters from the investor. Further the genuineness of the transaction is established as assessee company has furnished that all transactions are though banking channel, FIRC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

V. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) (xlv) 5.17 The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in this case the assessee company has proved the identity of the investor with confirmation letters from the investor. Further the genuineness of the transaction is established as assessee company has furnished that all transactions are though banking channel, FIRC

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

2) for reopening the earlier assessment made under section 143(1). All that has been excluded is that the assessee, in whose case the return was first processed under section 143(1), cannot challenge the notice of reopening on the ground that it is prompted by a mere change of opinion. Only to this limited extent there

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

2) for reopening the earlier assessment made under section 143(1). All that has been excluded is that the assessee, in whose case the return was first processed under section 143(1), cannot challenge the notice of reopening on the ground that it is prompted by a mere change of opinion. Only to this limited extent there

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects