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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Chandigarh30Chennai27Jaipur17Bangalore13Delhi11Pune9Ahmedabad8Kolkata8Hyderabad6Visakhapatnam4Cochin4Rajkot4Raipur2Allahabad2Ranchi2SC1Surat1Indore1Jodhpur1Patna1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14815Section 4012Section 201(1)11Section 143(3)10Addition to Income9Section 80P(2)(d)8Section 1948Section 1477Section 2017

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Brinda Rameswaran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

Disallowance6
TDS5
Deduction4

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of Page 2 of 8 the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 7.2.2013 by the JCIT, LTU, Bangalore , was partly allowed. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 107/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

VISHNU VARDHANA RAM YARA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 846/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Vardhana Ram Yara, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

reassessment under section 147 of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued and served and subsequently under section 142(1) Page 2 of 6 of the Act was issued but assessee did not file the return of income. Thereafter, several opportunities were provided to the assessee to comply with the notices. Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 195

194A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is not applicable. Thus, .even if a provision is made in the books, no taxes would be deductible at source, if the provision is reversed and no payment made. The Karnataka High Court referred to C.O. No. 42/Bang/2019 the Delhi High Court’s decision where it was held that mere

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise .increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 6.2.4 Accordingly, it was proposed to the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A will be made by invoking

STATE BANK OF INDIA,HOSPET vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Respondent: Sheri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148Section 191Section 194ASection 201(1)

194A is not applicable. (4) The learned Respondent is not justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in treating the appellant as an assessee in default only on failure to deduct tax at source. Reading together of section 201(1) and proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, clarify that (a) that there shall be failure

SHRI. G. MALLIKARJUNA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 78/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT
Section 129Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 234A

194A of the Act, assessee was required to deduct TDS for payment of interest on nonbanking financial companies, and hence disallowance of interest payment as per provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act was made. The Ld.AO also restricted depreciation claimed at 15% as against 30% claimed by assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee filed

DCIT, HASSAN vs. M/S SUJATHA NARAYAN & ASSOCIATES, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 71/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

194A(3) has not been provided to Sec 194H of the IT Act, vis-a-vis to the deduction of taxes at source and that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been properly done while concluding the assessment proceedings. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that, while making disallowance u/s 40(3)(ia), the definition

M/S. SUJATHA NARAYANAN & ASSOCIATES,HASSAN vs. ACIT, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 51/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

194A(3) has not been provided to Sec 194H of the IT Act, vis-a-vis to the deduction of taxes at source and that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been properly done while concluding the assessment proceedings. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that, while making disallowance u/s 40(3)(ia), the definition

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 565/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194CSection 250

Section Amount (Rs.) Ultratech Cement 194C 12,41,23,184 Vasavadatta Cement 194C 5,68,01,670 . ITA No.565 /Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 Total 18,09,24,854 6. Considering the above receipts of Rs. 18,09,24,854 reflected in Form 26AS, the AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by applying a profit rate

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances