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.

28 results for “reassessment”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi74Jaipur31Mumbai30Chennai29Bangalore28Hyderabad25Indore13Ahmedabad13Pune12Kolkata12Patna9Chandigarh9Nagpur9Raipur8Agra8Visakhapatnam7Lucknow7Jodhpur6Karnataka2Amritsar2Rajkot2Surat2Telangana1Ranchi1Dehradun1Cochin1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 54F50Section 14830Section 14717Capital Gains16Exemption15Section 143(3)14Addition to Income14Section 2(47)(v)13Reassessment12Long Term Capital Gains

R. JAYANNA HUF,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 986/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

reassessment under Section 148 is strictly limited to income escaping assessment, not permitting taxpayers to introduce new deductions or claims unrelated to the original assessment. or claims unrelated to the original assessments. (a) The appellant failed to claim Section 54F

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 5411
Section 53A11

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 956/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 957/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54FSection 68

54F of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.5 The learned assessing officer and learned DRP, failed to appreciate that the appellant having re-invested the capital gains arising from sale of original property in a new residential house is eligible for claim of exemption under section 54 F of the Act, and ought to have

SMT. K.R.YASHODHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 745/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Dandapani, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54F

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.4 Applying the ratio laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid case, it has to be seen in the present cases whether the AO had any cause or justification to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to lax has escaped assessment. The Appellant

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging the re- opening of assessment and also the re-computation of capital gains. The CIT(A) held that the re-opening is valid and also confirmed the computation of capital gain

SRI. G.A. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 286/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aanhr 4650 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan , CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 147Section 234Section 54BSection 54F

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act is patently illegal as the A.O. assumed jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act only to verify the correctness of the claims made by the appellant and there was no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 3. The learned CIT[A] erred in upholding the restriction of exemption u/s.54F to Rs.28,00,000/- as against

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 278/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148

54F in the said non est 'return of income' could not be allowed. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid observation of the lower authorities. We are of the considered view that though a statutory obligation is cast upon the assessee to comply with the notice issued u/s 148 and file the 'return of income' in compliance

SMT. P.HAMSAVENI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1801/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Dass, JCIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 54F

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, however, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the grounds raised by the assessee. 3. Before us, common grounds have been raised by the assessee in these appeals as under : 4. Ground Nos.1 to 6 are regarding validity of reopening of assessment. 5. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that during

SMT.K.R.LAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 503/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 4

reassessment the Assessing Officer had computed the capital gain as per the market value of super built up area amounting to Rs.56,26,692. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) and contended that since the JDA was executed by five members of the family and therefore property belongs

SRI RAJA REDDY KIRAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 3117/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. Raja Reddy Kiran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S. Shiv Service Centre, Ward - 1(2)(3), #14/1, Murphy Road, Bangalore. Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Adipk 7782 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Lakshmi K, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 54Section 54F

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and the assessee had not declared capital gains thereon; income of the assessee liable to tax had escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07. After recording reasons in this regard, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.02.2012 to the assessee. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1356/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 260ASection 53A

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption under section 54F

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1355/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 260ASection 53A

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption under section 54F

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1354/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 260ASection 53A

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption under section 54F

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1353/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 260ASection 53A

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption under section 54F

SRI DAMODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3052/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Damodar Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 4[2][2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Aizpr 4884 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

reassessment amounted to merely reasons to suspect on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 3. Without Prejudice, there was no event of `transfer'as per Section 2[47][vj of the Act. i) The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that there was no event of `transfer' as defined in Section

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 147Section 45Section 54B

section 54F of the Act, capital gain was invested in construction of residential house, but the fact that actual construction was completed beyond the period contemplated u/s. 54F of the Act was no ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F. Applying the same analogy, the assessee pleaded that the capital gain in question should be allowed as deduction

SRI SRINIVAS REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3045/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Srinivas Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 102, Sai Deep Heera Apartments, Ward – 7[2], 6Th Main, 1St Cross, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avfpr 6754 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

reassessment amounted to merely reasons to suspect on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 3. Without Prejudice, there was no event of `transfer'as per Section 2[47][vj of the Act. i) The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that there was no event of `transfer' as defined in Section

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to tax on a total Income of Rs 1,68,60,550/- as against the income reported by the appellant of Rs 1,90,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned

SMT ROOPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3046/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Roopa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 7[2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avwpr 4000 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment amounted to merely reasons to suspect on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 3. Without Prejudice, there was no event of `transfer'as per Section 2[47][vj of the Act. i) The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that there was no event of `transfer' as defined in Section