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.

184 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi347Mumbai307Bangalore184Jaipur110Hyderabad80Ahmedabad78Pune38Chennai36Kolkata26Agra24Cochin23Rajkot20Indore20Visakhapatnam19Dehradun15Nagpur15Ranchi15Lucknow13Chandigarh12Amritsar11Allahabad11Jodhpur10Patna9Guwahati9Karnataka4Raipur4SC4Surat4K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Panaji1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 148108Addition to Income81Section 153A65Section 234A57Section 13249Section 143(3)44Section 14742Disallowance38Section 14436Reassessment

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The Appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary, at the time of hearing. 11) For these and other grounds that

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 184 · Page 1 of 10

...
35
Section 25033
Natural Justice33
ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
14 Nov 2022
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The Appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary, at the time of hearing. 11) For these and other grounds that

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The Appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary, at the time of hearing. 11) For these and other grounds that

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 394/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR. M.RAMESH,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M.RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 148Section 69

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

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 proceeding is not in accordance with law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 4,05,37,500/- on account of unaccounted purchases is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Commissioner of Income

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 928/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 175/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 931/BANG/2017[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 176/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 930/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 174/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 20. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No.738/Bang/2015). 4. Before us, apart from putting forth oral arguments

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 234/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with the provisions

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 236/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with the provisions