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.

482 results for “reassessment”+ Section 11(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,627Mumbai2,349Chennai895Ahmedabad559Hyderabad520Jaipur515Bangalore482Kolkata428Raipur416Chandigarh306Pune289Rajkot204Indore200Amritsar160Surat159Cochin133Visakhapatnam128Patna113Nagpur100Cuttack90Guwahati90Agra83Ranchi65SC63Dehradun61Lucknow59Jodhpur56Allahabad37Panaji27Jabalpur5Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 14876Section 153C59Section 143(3)55Section 153A50Section 13249Section 14742Section 40A(3)29Section 25027

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

section as a whole and accordingly the said insertion of first proviso to s. 12A(2) of the Act w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2014 should be read as retrospective in operation w.e.f. the date when the condition of eligibility for exemption under ss. 11 85 12 as mentioned in s. 12A provided for registration under s. 12AA ae a pre-condition

Showing 1–20 of 482 · Page 1 of 25

...
Disallowance27
Survey u/s 133A16
Reassessment15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

ITA 1548/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1559/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

ITA 1549/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

11 shall inter-alia file its return of income within the due dates. Further it is specifically mentioned that the amendment will take effect from 01/04/2018 and will accordingly apply from assessment Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore Page 19 of 25 year 2018-19 and subsequent years. Hence the Bench is of the view that on the application of general

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

ITA 1547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1561/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

ITA 903/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1060/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

6) of the Act.\nHence, the impugned seized material evidences receipt of capitation\nfees, considering the statement of cashier and agent and corroborative\nmaterials found. As such all these materials become a self-speaking\ndocument having bearing on the income of the assessee.\n5.1 Hence, the AO drawn inference that the assessee has received\nunaccounted capitation fees in cash. Accordingly

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21
Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

6) or sub-section (7), where\nunder-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any\nperson, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per\ncent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income.\n(9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1542/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 274

6) or sub-section (7), where under- reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274

6) or sub-section (7), where under- reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148