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.

689 results for “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,663Delhi2,268Chennai1,398Kolkata808Ahmedabad704Bangalore689Jaipur552Hyderabad490Surat456Pune450Indore330Chandigarh273Rajkot189Raipur188Cochin181Visakhapatnam159Cuttack101Amritsar92Nagpur85Lucknow78Karnataka69Guwahati65Agra57Calcutta46Allahabad41Patna33Jodhpur32Ranchi27Dehradun26Telangana24Jabalpur18Panaji17SC13Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Varanasi4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148108Section 14786Section 143(3)82Addition to Income66Section 153A56Section 153C50Section 13240Disallowance40Section 26329Deduction

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 3. Hence it was proposed to reopen the assessment recording the following reasons:- 1. Interest

Showing 1–20 of 689 · Page 1 of 35

...
29
Reopening of Assessment28
Section 133A26

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed and Appeal for the A

ITA 1017/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

reopen the assessments by issuing a Notice under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2013 on the reason that the claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was disallowed

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

reopen assessment. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had tangible material on the basis of which he has formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The tangible material consists of material that came into the possession of the department following a survey operation which took place under section 133A. During the course of Page

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment in this case is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment. ITA No.465/Bang/2020 for AY 2014-15 11. In this case, the facts are that assessment was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 13.12.2016 making the following disallowances

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment in this case is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment. ITA No.465/Bang/2020 for AY 2014-15 11. In this case, the facts are that assessment was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 13.12.2016 making the following disallowances

M/S. UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened without any allegation by the Assessing Officer that there was non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee while framing the original assessment. Hence we are inclined to annul the assessment. Since we have quashed the assessment, we are refrained to go into the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened without any allegation by the Assessing Officer that there was non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee while framing the original assessment. Hence we are inclined to annul the assessment. Since we have quashed the assessment, we are refrained to go into the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened without any allegation by the Assessing Officer that there was non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee while framing the original assessment. Hence we are inclined to annul the assessment. Since we have quashed the assessment, we are refrained to go into the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCEL-11(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowed depreciation on goodwill of Rs.26,25,00,000/- thus completing the re-assessment by way of order dated 27/12/2010. 8. Being aggrieved, assessee-company preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), inter alia challenging validity of reopening

SMT. P.HAMSAVENI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1801/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Dass, JCIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54 and consequently the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) who held that the capital gain is chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2007-08 instead of 2008-09. Pursuant to the said order of the CIT (Appeals), the Assessing Officer reopened

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

reopened in these assessment years validly opened u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised in these appeals are dismissed. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 22 of 41 On merit:- Disallowance

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

reopening of assessment. 4. In any case, the passing of the order without complying with the legal and statutory requirements of reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. In any case, non disposal of objections filed through speaking order makes the assessment bad in law and such order is liable

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowance made, even though, the learned AO mentioned that said excess provision written back is pertaining to business under section IDA of the Act in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned AO of initiating the penalty proceedings

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1811/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

disallowance is not legally sustainable. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel assessee invited my attention with regard to ground No. 2 through which he assailed the validity of the reopening of the assessment

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1810/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

disallowance is not legally sustainable. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel assessee invited my attention with regard to ground No. 2 through which he assailed the validity of the reopening of the assessment