Search: reassessment

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur26 Mumbai19 Delhi17 Chennai8 Cochin7 Lucknow7 Pune6 Ahmedabad5 Bangalore5 Hyderabad5 Amritsar4 Telangana4 Cuttack4 Visakhapatnam3 Surat3 Indore2 Kolkata2 Nagpur2 Chandigarh1 Ranchi1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153C8 Section 807 Section 80C5 Section 148A5 Deduction5 Section 1444 Section 143(2)4 Addition to Income4 Section 2503 Section 148

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

ITA 2654/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR

Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 44ASection 80C

80C, was below the taxable limit for the relevant assessment year. 6. The learned CIT Appeals has further erred in not appreciating that part of the cash deposits represented agricultural income from the appellant's 4 acres of agricultural land, which is exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

AJITH M KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

SMT. SUNITH SINGH MURALIDHARA ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ABHINANDAN SHANTHINATH SALIGRAMA ,MYSORE vs. DCIT-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

M. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE