BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai41Chennai25Bangalore19Jodhpur7Cochin7Kolkata4Ahmedabad4Jaipur2Delhi2Ranchi1Chandigarh1Guwahati1Hyderabad1Lucknow1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 14712Section 143(3)6Section 36(1)(viia)5Addition to Income4Section 250(6)3Section 1483Depreciation3Reopening of Assessment3

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

36(1)(viia) which was not done. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s.147 of the Act.” 11. He stated that what the AO has considered to be material fact was not material fact, but only

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

36(1)(viia) which was not done. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s.147 of the Act.” 11. He stated that what the AO has considered to be material fact was not material fact, but only

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

36(1)(viia) which was not done. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s.147 of the Act.” 11. He stated that what the AO has considered to be material fact was not material fact, but only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA vs. THE BHARUCH DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED, BHARUCH

ITA 693/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs
Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act for bad and doubtful debts. In response to inquiries about this deduction, the assessee submitted that as a co-operative bank, it qualified for specific deductions under the mentioned section, which permits deductions based on a percentage of total income and rural advances. The calculations showed that while 7.5% of gross total