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.

87 results for “reassessment”+ Section 17(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore87Mumbai46Delhi28Jaipur26Indore23Chennai22Chandigarh21Raipur12Guwahati12Jodhpur10Hyderabad7Ahmedabad6Cochin6Kolkata6Rajkot5Allahabad3Karnataka3Lucknow3Pune3Patna1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)161Section 192160Section 20180Section 17(1)(va)80TDS80Section 1476Section 143(1)6Section 142A6Disallowance6Section 143(3)

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

reassessment proceedings. ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 12 of 22 (2) J.N. Sahni v. ITAT (2002) 257 ITR 16 (Delhi). In this case, discussing the power of Tribunal to pass an order under section 254(2) it was held that review of an order cannot be done under the garb of section

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

5
Addition to Income5
Deduction4
ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

reassessment proceedings. ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 12 of 22 (2) J.N. Sahni v. ITAT (2002) 257 ITR 16 (Delhi). In this case, discussing the power of Tribunal to pass an order under section 254(2) it was held that review of an order cannot be done under the garb of section

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

va] and 43B of the Act will not have application to relevant assessment year, namely A.Y. 2019- 2020. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to ESI since the assessee has made payment before the due date of filing of the return SP No.31/Bang/2022 & ITA No.503/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 23 of income

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2472/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

1,52,95,415 C Cost of construction as on 31-03-2007 — 23.58% 36,06,659 L Less: Cost of construction admitted by the assessee 32,32,293 3,74,366 Dif Difference in cost of construction brought to tax u/s 69B 4. Shah Bazar Land Val Vaue of the land estimated

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 286/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

1,52,95,415 C Cost of construction as on 31-03-2007 — 23.58% 36,06,659 L Less: Cost of construction admitted by the assessee 32,32,293 3,74,366 Dif Difference in cost of construction brought to tax u/s 69B 4. Shah Bazar Land Val Vaue of the land estimated

M/S KPTCL,KARKALA vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2409/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BANGALORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2443/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,MYSORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2382/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BANGALORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2444/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL ,DAVANGERE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDSLTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2397/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,HUBLI vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2394/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,KALABURAGI vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2441/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,TUMKUR vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2379/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BANGALORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2415/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BELGAUM vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2388/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,TUMKUR vs. ITO (OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2380/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,SHIMOGA vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2449/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BANGALORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2457/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,HOLENARASIPURA vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn

M/S KPTCL,BANGALORE vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)LTPU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2389/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

va) to Sec.17(1) of the Act it is only “any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him”. It was submitted that on retirement the employer employee relationship between KPTCL and the retiring employee ceases and any payment made thereafter cannot be strictly termed as “Salary”. Our attention was drawn