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.

60 results for “reassessment”+ Section 206(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi305Mumbai275Chennai106Jaipur99Ahmedabad83Bangalore60Chandigarh41Raipur38Kolkata37Pune27Nagpur17Cochin16Hyderabad15Surat11Indore10Allahabad10Visakhapatnam10Lucknow10Amritsar9Rajkot4Panaji3Jodhpur3Karnataka3SC3Telangana2Ranchi2Rajasthan1Orissa1Patna1Cuttack1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 153C83Section 153A46Addition to Income41Section 14837Section 14730Section 13228Section 143(3)25Natural Justice20Section 1119

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 8. Section 149 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012. The amended section reads as under:- “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

Section 6816
Reassessment14
Disallowance12

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 8. Section 149 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012. The amended section reads as under:- “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under s. 148 quashed" On merits, the assessee submits that the AO in support of the allegations made in the notice dt.13.01.2017 relied on statements purportedly recorded on oath of certain persons namely Shri Amit Saraogi

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under s. 148 quashed" On merits, the assessee submits that the AO in support of the allegations made in the notice dt.13.01.2017 relied on statements purportedly recorded on oath of certain persons namely Shri Amit Saraogi

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under s. 148 quashed" On merits, the assessee submits that the AO in support of the allegations made in the notice dt.13.01.2017 relied on statements purportedly recorded on oath of certain persons namely Shri Amit Saraogi

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under s. 148 quashed" On merits, the assessee submits that the AO in support of the allegations made in the notice dt.13.01.2017 relied on statements purportedly recorded on oath of certain persons namely Shri Amit Saraogi

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

6. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B without appreciating the provisions of section 234B(3). M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 17 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 10A on the amount of provisions written back. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment order as invalid for the reason that the facts alleged in the reasons recorded are incorrect.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee inadvertently did not specifically take the above mentioned grounds arising from the reassessment order, as such

SRI. CHERIYAN ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R N Parbat, CIT-3 (D.R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292BSection 5

6 8. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we are of the view that even if the assessee filed the return of income on 26.9.2012 and the Assessing Officer has subsequently issued a Notice under Section 142(1), the same will not effect the validity of the assessment in question framed under Section

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

6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued under this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette,, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of the return of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class

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

6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued under this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette,, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of the return of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

6 of 38 evidence for the AO for formation of the belief as to the escapement of income chargeable to tax. In this case, it is undisputed fact that information gathered in the course of search conducted in the case of K.G. Krishna was forwarded to AO for necessary action in the matter in accordance with law. Thus

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1363/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1358/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1361/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO., ,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 30/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1360/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1362/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

206 of the paper book] :- Financial year Speed money paid in Rs. 2005 – 06 8,59,24,000 2006 – 07 10,21,12,375 2007 – 08 10,94,12,751 2008 – 09 2,53,63,365 2009 – 10 3,70,08,230 2010 – 11 2,34,95,290 2011-12 till 44,53,085 04/08/2011 7.5 The learned A.O. observed