BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 244A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai37Delhi20Allahabad16Chennai13Cochin9Ahmedabad8Chandigarh7Bangalore6Kolkata3Jaipur2Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 153C20Section 15316Section 2506Addition to Income6Section 1434Section 1324Section 153A4Section 1443Section 143(2)2

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

ERKI RAMESH UPADHYAYA HUF, ,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

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

ITA 476/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 148Section 171Section 234ASection 250

1, Bangalore. In response to notice u/s. 148 issued, the assessee HUF has e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 07.09.2019 by declaring again the total income of Rs.14,840/- and agricultural income of Rs.6,80,450/-. 6. Further, during the course of Reassessment proceedings the copies of return of income filed along with computation

ABHINANDAN SHANTHINATH SALIGRAMA ,MYSORE vs. DCIT-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

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

ITA 2209/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 140BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

1) of the Act, the assessee chosen old tax regime and claimed deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- and claimed refund of Rs.2,08,020/-. The assessee after receiving notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 19/06/2024 immediately updated his return of income on 25/06/2024 by revising his particulars of income as well