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.

293 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi671Mumbai606Bangalore293Ahmedabad112Jaipur87Hyderabad81Chennai77Kolkata69Pune49Rajkot26Agra26Indore24Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Lucknow18Chandigarh18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack7Karnataka7Ranchi7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Raipur3SC3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 148140Section 143(3)93Addition to Income78Section 153A63Section 153C48Section 14744Section 13241Section 234A37Disallowance35Section 250

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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

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

Showing 1–20 of 293 · Page 1 of 15

...
34
Reassessment32
Natural Justice29
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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

234B & 234D is consequential in nature. 13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.1 & 17 are general in nature. 15. Ground Nos. 2 to 9: Disallowance u/s. 14A: During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has received certain exempt income but there is no disallowance made

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

234B & 234D is consequential in nature. 13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.1 & 17 are general in nature. 15. Ground Nos. 2 to 9: Disallowance u/s. 14A: During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has received certain exempt income but there is no disallowance made

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

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

234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, both the parties are before us by way of cross Appeals. 4. The first ground of appeal

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

234B and section 234C in view of the fact there is no additional liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing Officer. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 10. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 3.1 In any case and without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are applicable in the instant case and thus confirming the additions made by Assessing officer

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

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 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

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-12, under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs. 83,17,454/- as against

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 195/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 234A

1. The order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, Probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist or having

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

1) (a), (b) 8s (c) of the Act did not exist and hence the order is required to be annulled on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

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

1) (a), (b) 8s (c) of the Act did not exist and hence the order is required to be annulled on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

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

1) (a), (b) 8s (c) of the Act did not exist and hence the order is required to be annulled on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

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

1) (a), (b) 8s (c) of the Act did not exist and hence the order is required to be annulled on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page

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

1) (a), (b) 8s (c) of the Act did not exist and hence the order is required to be annulled on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section ITA Nos.928 to 931/Bang/2017 & 174 to 176/Bang/2018 Page