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.

94 results for “reassessment”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai243Delhi217Chennai130Bangalore94Jaipur54Amritsar46Raipur35Kolkata34Hyderabad34Indore32Ahmedabad26Rajkot25Cuttack25Cochin23Pune18Agra16Lucknow11Surat11Guwahati10Nagpur10Jodhpur10Patna9Chandigarh8Visakhapatnam4Karnataka3Dehradun2SC1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 148128Section 14A79Section 143(3)68Section 14764Addition to Income56Section 153A53Section 40A(3)49Disallowance45Section 13233Section 153C

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the Act but it is also revealed that these payments were pertained to salary for the months of May to August. The genuineness of the payments has not been doubted. The employees were insisted upon casfannexh payments only, therefore, to maintain the good relation with them, the company paid cash salary for various months

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

26
Reassessment23
Survey u/s 133A21

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

reassessed. In the accepted the credit in the name of Mr. Sunil Patil of Rs.42 lakhs and there is no evidence or seized material found during the search to support the undisclosed income. However from the record produced before us, we find that the assessee has filed a return of income on 3.2.2010 along with the Balance Sheet wherein this

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

ITA 1376/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Standing Counsel to Dept. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

40A(3), 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax act, 1961 which could have been made in order passed u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Income. Tax Act, 1961. Such order is not an erroneous order as he has followed the Jurisdictional High Court judgment. 4. In CIT Vs Parmanand M Patel (2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj) held that

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 221/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 220/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 292/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 40A(3) would apply to the contract and trading receipts. 29. We have heard both the parties. We agree with the claim of assessee that once there has been an estimate, all the deductions are deemed to have been taken into account while making such estimate and hence no separate addition can be made. However, whether the estimate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1661/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 127/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1660/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 320/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, JCIT(DR)
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act. In this regard, the proposition canvassed by the learned Authorised Representative before us is that though the disallowances were made were agreed to, they do not stand the test of law as they ought not to have been made since they do not constitute income as per the provisions