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.

1,139 results for “reassessment”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,995Delhi4,815Chennai1,384Kolkata1,232Bangalore1,139Jaipur924Ahmedabad841Hyderabad599Pune506Chandigarh389Surat341Indore322Raipur272Amritsar271Visakhapatnam269Cochin253Rajkot252Cuttack144Nagpur142Patna135Guwahati129Karnataka121Agra113Lucknow104Dehradun89Ranchi82Jodhpur65Telangana63Allahabad56Calcutta40Panaji32SC25Jabalpur24Orissa10Varanasi9Kerala8Rajasthan7Punjab & Haryana6Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 148107Section 143(3)82Section 153A74Section 14768Addition to Income66Section 153C50Section 13234Section 133A32Reassessment22Disallowance

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 2484/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment order set-aside proceedings under section 263. v. The learned CIT – A has failed to appreciate that in case of set aside assessment under section 263 there is no requirement for issuance of a fresh notice under section 143 (2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 1,139 · Page 1 of 57

...
22
Section 25021
Reopening of Assessment21
ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the\nrequirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing\nOfficer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar. S.V, Advocate and Sri Joseph VargheseFor Respondent: Sri Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 250Section 69

2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.— Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar. S.V, Advocate and Sri Joseph VargheseFor Respondent: Sri Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 250Section 69

2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.— Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

reassessment under section 147 is vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to invoke his power to correct the assessment already completed under section 143(1) by issuing a notice under section 143(2

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 278/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

RENUKA G.,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 292B

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2

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(3) 2012-TIOL-532-ITAT-MUM-TM held as under:- “section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that the reassessment

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(3) 2012-TIOL-532-ITAT-MUM-TM held as under:- “section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that the reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRUST CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BALDWIN BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

143(2) is mandatory. As per assessment order, we find that there was no notice issued under section143(2) of the Act, which is essential for reassessment and it is a failure on the part of the Ld.AO for not complying with the procedure laid down in section

TNT EXPRESS WORLDWIDE UK LIMITED,U.K vs. ADIT, BANGALORE

In the result, order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1262/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR-II
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147

reassessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Now the question arises whether the assessment framed on the basis of return filed consequent to notice under section 148 of the Act without serving notice under section 143(2

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ASHED PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1302/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Ravichandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment served under section 148, and subsequently a notice has been served under section 143(2) [or 143(2)(ii), as the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Prasad Reddy, A.R
Section 10Section 127Section 129Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:- "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.--Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 666/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 50C

reassessment proceedings void ab initio.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(1)", "Section 143(3)", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 143(2

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

ITA 1154/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

For Appellant: Sri Abarana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 38(1)

143(3) of the Act on 20.2.2019 by making following\nadditions and disallowance of claims/deduction claimed by\nthe assessee.\nPage 5 of 40\nSl.\nNo.\nNature of additions/disallowances\nAmount in Rs.\n1.\nDisallowance of Bad debts written off u/s 38(1)(vii)\n4745,39,23,677\n2.\nDisallowance of Expenditure towards CSR\n28,30,03,864\n3.\nDisallowance of Trust

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

143(3) dated\n29.09.2021 is bad and non-est as the Learned AO has obtained a\nsingle approval of the JCIT Central Range vide letter\nF.No.26/Jt.CIT/CR/MNG/2021-22 dated 28.09.2021 contrary to the\nphrase “in respect of each assessment year” under Section 153D.\n(Addnl. Ground 5B for AY 2020-21 and similar ground in\nGround