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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur32Delhi25Mumbai23Pune18Chennai15Agra10Ahmedabad9Indore9Kolkata9Amritsar5Hyderabad5Surat3Bangalore3Nagpur2Raipur2Patna1SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271E4Section 269S3Section 269T3Penalty3Section 271D2Section 1472Section 542Section 2492Reassessment2

T.R. AMAR,TUMAKURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TUMAKURU RANGE,, TUMAKURU

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1882/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 269TSection 271E

271E and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Since all these appeals have common and identical issues, they are clubbed and heard together and consolidated order is passed. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No.1882/Bang/2019 and facts narrated therein. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it is a case where a claim has been made in an open and bonafide manner and hence in terms of provisions of section 273B of the Act, which specifically exclude the rigors of provisions of section 271D of the Act, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable in the present case

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 249Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment order, principle of natural justice and ‘audi alterm partem’ needs to be followed. We therefore quash impugned notice issued under section 148 dated Page 11 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 28/04/2015 at the wrong address and the consequential assessment order passed is set aside. Accordingly, we allow legal issue raised by Ld.AR in ground