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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44Delhi29Jaipur28Chandigarh22Chennai20Indore18Guwahati12Jodhpur11Raipur11Kolkata9Bangalore9Hyderabad8Ahmedabad7Cochin6Rajkot5Pune3Allahabad3Karnataka3Lucknow3Surat2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 1476Section 143(1)6Section 143(3)6Section 142A6Disallowance6Addition to Income6Deduction5Section 694Section 139(1)4Section 43B

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21
Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported\nunder sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas\ndisallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2 For the purpose of evaluating

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

3
Section 148A2
Unexplained Investment2
ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

va] and 43B of the Act will not have application to relevant assessment year, namely A.Y. 2019- 2020. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to ESI since the assessee has made payment before the due date of filing of the return SP No.31/Bang/2022 & ITA No.503/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 23 of income

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

reassessment proceedings. ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 12 of 22 (2) J.N. Sahni v. ITAT (2002) 257 ITR 16 (Delhi). In this case, discussing the power of Tribunal to pass an order under section 254(2) it was held that review of an order cannot be done under the garb of section

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

reassessment proceedings. ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 12 of 22 (2) J.N. Sahni v. ITAT (2002) 257 ITR 16 (Delhi). In this case, discussing the power of Tribunal to pass an order under section 254(2) it was held that review of an order cannot be done under the garb of section

DAVANAM JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/BANG/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 37

36(1) (va) of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 22,500 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged non-deduction of tax at source, without appreciating the facts and law. Page 4 of 10 9. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2472/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

1,52,95,415 C Cost of construction as on 31-03-2007 — 23.58% 36,06,659 L Less: Cost of construction admitted by the assessee 32,32,293 3,74,366 Dif Difference in cost of construction brought to tax u/s 69B 4. Shah Bazar Land Val Vaue of the land estimated

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 286/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

1,52,95,415 C Cost of construction as on 31-03-2007 — 23.58% 36,06,659 L Less: Cost of construction admitted by the assessee 32,32,293 3,74,366 Dif Difference in cost of construction brought to tax u/s 69B 4. Shah Bazar Land Val Vaue of the land estimated

M/S J P DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28

36 (1)(va) of the Act -Rs.3,38,328/- Page 4 of 11 3. Assessee filed appeal against the assessment order under section 143(3) before Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the appeal vide order dated 28/03/2014. Further an appeal was preferred by revenue before this Tribunal in ITA No.726/B/2016 wherein, this Tribunal by order dated 14/07/2017 dismissed the appeal

APPU NUTRITIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHEMMANUR HALL,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 1(1)(1),BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING,KORAMANGALA

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

ITA 1720/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16 Appu Nutritious Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O, Idiom Design & Circle – 1(1)(1), Consulting Ltd., Joseph Bangalore. Chemmanur Hall, 1St Cross, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aabca 7049 M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajith Kumar, Director Respondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac], For The Ay 2015-16. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2015 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar, DirectorFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)

sections 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and the assessment proceedings were completed. 3. Aggrieved from the Order of Assessment, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 12.06.2018. During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued 8 notices to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee side. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal