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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 548clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai78Delhi59Ahmedabad31Surat17Chandigarh15Indore15Pune14Raipur11Chennai9Jaipur8Nagpur8Hyderabad6Kolkata5Bangalore5Rajkot3Jodhpur2Dehradun1Cuttack1Cochin1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 4012Section 14811Section 1445Section 143(3)4Section 1434Section 1473Section 133A3Section 139(1)3TDS3Reassessment

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)
2
Addition to Income2
Survey u/s 133A2
Section 144
Section 148
Section 54
Section 548
Section 54B

548 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 5 The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the capital gains were reinvested in agricultural land in satisfaction of conditions laid down in section 54B of the IT Act. 6 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO erred

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

ITA 380/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 68

section 5[3] of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, the assessment could not be reopened in respect of matters that were settled under the scheme and that the receipt of the share premium was not an independent transaction but part of the amounts received by the assessee for issue of shares at premium for which an addition

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 565/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194CSection 250

reassessment proceedings on this count. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 13. Ground No. 4 relate to the best judgment assessment framed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act. 14. At the outset, we note that, at the time of hearing, the assessee did not make any submission with respect to the aforesaid ground

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned