Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

147 results for “reassessment”+ Section 159clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi590 Mumbai364 Jaipur160 Bangalore147 Ahmedabad135 Chennai129 Kolkata118 Pune46 Chandigarh39 Raipur38 Nagpur32 Hyderabad30 Amritsar29 Cochin29 Guwahati28 Visakhapatnam27 Telangana25 Lucknow20 Allahabad20 Indore18 Cuttack17 Rajkot12 Surat11 Agra11 Jabalpur7 Patna7 Karnataka6 Jodhpur5 SC3 Orissa2 Rajasthan2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Uttarakhand1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79 Section 153C67 Section 153A66 Section 13263 Section 143(3)43 Section 14842 Section 14740 Survey u/s 133A27 Section 6825

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Varun Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 250

section 159(2) of the Act makes a specific reference to reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. While section

Showing 1–20 of 147 · Page 1 of 8

...

Section 132(4)24

Undisclosed Income12

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

159. (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries 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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 956/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

159. (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

159 or section 292 or section 292BB relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (supra). 10. The Ld.AR further relied on the catena of cases including by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment

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

159 CTR 114 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 5395 of 1993 dated February 16, 2000 held that where a return filed along with refund application being a valid return, and no assessment order had been communicated to assessee, no action under section 147/148 could have been taken. The decisions brought out herein apply

NIRMAL KUMAR (AS LEGAL HEIR/REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE MISHRILAL SHARNICKRAJ),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1191/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shirish C. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 68

reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection." Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased-assessee is null and void

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

reassessment proceedings are initiated on mere reason to suspect and reason to believe is not forthcoming, then such proceedings are not sustainable in law. o. The Assessee relies on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 159 ITR 956 has held as under: “reason to believe

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1453/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1459/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1454/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

ITA 2132/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , , BANGALORE

ITA 1442/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1458/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

159 of the Act makes it clear that legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherit, and not personally liable beyond that. 17.8 Furthermore, the assessee has not provided details regarding their respective shares in the inherited estate. In such cases, the AO is justified in making a single consolidated assessment in the names