Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

43 results for “reassessment”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284 Mumbai265 Ahmedabad65 Jaipur54 Indore53 Kolkata53 Bangalore43 Chandigarh39 Chennai38 Rajkot23 Lucknow22 Allahabad22 Nagpur21 Panaji21 Patna21 Raipur21 Agra17 Surat17 Ranchi14 Dehradun13 Pune13 Hyderabad12 Guwahati11 Cuttack11 Cochin10 Jodhpur4 Amritsar3 Varanasi3

Key Topics

Section 14A32 Section 143(3)25 Section 13224 Addition to Income24 Disallowance23 Section 153A17 Section 14816 Section 115J15 Section 4014 Section 36(1)(vii)

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

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

12

Undisclosed Income9

Survey u/s 133A8

253. He submitted that however the judgment is related to section 151 of the Act but as per section 282A of the Act, the AO has to sign each and every notices/order/document. He also referred to para Nos.10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment. He also referred to judgment of the jurisdictional High

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R

Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

253 (Bombay). iv) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, 2008. v) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC). 4.10 Further he submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017 for the AY 2010-11. The notice for reopening the assessment under section 147 rws 148 of the Act was issued

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1117/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1119/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 385/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification\nfor cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba\nJewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short\nthat regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.”\n15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023

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

reassessment order after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2011-12, though there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is contrary to first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Ground relating to Corporate Tax 4. The learned

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 983/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

253/- 2017-18 2,11,47,366/- 2018-19 1,48,25,791/- 2.6 As per seized material, assessee had received Rs.6,88,95,000/- through bank and Rs.3,94,55,000/- as cash from Creek Developers and Builders as on 22.3.2016 and expenditure upto 22.3.2016 are recorded in page 102 of the seized material and AO worked out these

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 982/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

253/- 2017-18 2,11,47,366/- 2018-19 1,48,25,791/- 2.6 As per seized material, assessee had received Rs.6,88,95,000/- through bank and Rs.3,94,55,000/- as cash from Creek Developers and Builders as on 22.3.2016 and expenditure upto 22.3.2016 are recorded in page 102 of the seized material and AO worked out these

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 734/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

253/- 2017-18 2,11,47,366/- 2018-19 1,48,25,791/- 2.6 As per seized material, assessee had received Rs.6,88,95,000/- through bank and Rs.3,94,55,000/- as cash from Creek Developers and Builders as on 22.3.2016 and expenditure upto 22.3.2016 are recorded in page 102 of the seized material and AO worked out these

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 733/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

253/- 2017-18 2,11,47,366/- 2018-19 1,48,25,791/- 2.6 As per seized material, assessee had received Rs.6,88,95,000/- through bank and Rs.3,94,55,000/- as cash from Creek Developers and Builders as on 22.3.2016 and expenditure upto 22.3.2016 are recorded in page 102 of the seized material and AO worked out these

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 735/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

253/- 2017-18 2,11,47,366/- 2018-19 1,48,25,791/- 2.6 As per seized material, assessee had received Rs.6,88,95,000/- through bank and Rs.3,94,55,000/- as cash from Creek Developers and Builders as on 22.3.2016 and expenditure upto 22.3.2016 are recorded in page 102 of the seized material and AO worked out these