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.

309 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi678Mumbai624Bangalore309Ahmedabad120Jaipur95Chennai88Hyderabad84Kolkata70Pune49Agra29Rajkot28Indore26Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Dehradun19Lucknow19Chandigarh18Visakhapatnam17Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack8Ranchi7Karnataka7Guwahati5Jodhpur4SC3Raipur3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 148148Section 143(3)92Addition to Income76Section 153A73Section 153C55Section 14748Section 13248Section 25039Section 234A37Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2508/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 234B

section 234B(1) and 234B(3) as it was for the year under appeal. As per the said provisions interest u/s.234B(3) was leviable at 1%, per month for the period from the day following the regular assessment and ending with the reassessment

Showing 1–20 of 309 · Page 1 of 16

...
31
Reassessment27
Natural Justice25

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

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 may be urged

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 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 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

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 may be urged

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

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 may be urged

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 & 234B

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 & 234B

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 & 234B

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 & 234B

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 & 234B

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 & 234B

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4 , BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3418/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

reassessment order passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 be quashed or in the alternative, the disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(i) be deleted, payments made to AEs be held as not liable TDS under section 195 and interest levied under section 234B

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

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

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

reassessed. In the accepted the credit in the name of Mr. Sunil Patil of Rs.42 lakhs and there is no evidence or seized material found during the search to support the undisclosed income. However from the record produced before us, we find that the assessee has filed a return of income on 3.2.2010 along with the Balance Sheet wherein this

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 371/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

234B is not in accordance with law. 6.1 Without prejudice the disallowances are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be reduced substantially 7.1 For these and any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in full.” 2. The assessee has raised the following