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.

332 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai982Delhi689Chennai355Bangalore332Jaipur217Ahmedabad203Kolkata169Hyderabad131Pune109Chandigarh107Raipur100Indore85Rajkot58Lucknow49Guwahati42Surat42Cochin40Patna36Visakhapatnam33Nagpur29Cuttack22Amritsar18Jodhpur17Agra13Allahabad12Dehradun11Karnataka11Telangana4Varanasi4Jabalpur3SC3Panaji2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Kerala1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 14892Section 14A80Addition to Income73Section 143(3)72Section 14761Section 153A50Section 143(2)44Disallowance37Section 153C

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 405/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

u/s 148 was served on 30-06-2021 (Annexure no. 2) and hence the amended provisions of section 147 should have been followed. k. Reliance is placed on the following, (i). Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd.[2022] 137 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay) “This Court is of the view that had the intention of the Legislature been to keep the erstwhile provisions

Showing 1–20 of 332 · Page 1 of 17

...
35
Section 25031
Reassessment27
Exemption23

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the present case, the second notice was issued during pendency of the first notice and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the present case, the second notice was issued during pendency of the first notice and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the present case, the second notice was issued during pendency of the first notice and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the present case, the second notice was issued during pendency of the first notice and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the present case, the second notice was issued during pendency of the first notice and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 7

exemption both under 10(23C)(vi) and 12A of the I.T. Act and the A.O has also made the addition of donations of Rs. 12,49,08,600 received, but not accounted in its books, u/s 11 of the Act as undisclosed receipts (Para 21/Page 12 of the impugned order of the AO). The failure on the part

SRI.THIMMIAH MANDEPANDRA KALAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3438/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

u/s 147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and refrained from including interest and dividend income earned outside India and he ought to have appreciated that the said income was exempted

SRI.THIMMIAH MANDEPANDRA KALAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3437/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

u/s 147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and refrained from including interest and dividend income earned outside India and he ought to have appreciated that the said income was exempted

SRI THIMMIAH MANDEPANDRA KALAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3439/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

u/s 147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and refrained from including interest and dividend income earned outside India and he ought to have appreciated that the said income was exempted

SRI THIMMIAH MANDEPANDRA KALAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3440/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

u/s 147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and refrained from including interest and dividend income earned outside India and he ought to have appreciated that the said income was exempted

SRI THIMMIAH MANDEPANDRA KALAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3436/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

u/s 147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and refrained from including interest and dividend income earned outside India and he ought to have appreciated that the said income was exempted

ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DY.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 912/BANG/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.912 & 917/Bang/2014 (Asst. Year - 1996-97 & 2001-02) M/S Ananda Social & Educational Trust, No.24, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle-17(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri S Sukumar, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 17-7-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-7-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT
Section 10(22)Section 12ASection 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

147 was were supplied to the assessee, therefore, the assessee cannot raise this issue when the matter was already carried to the Hon’ble High Court and remitted back to the AO. 12. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. 13. In the earlier round of litigation, the CIT(A) granted the relief

ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DY.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 917/BANG/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.912 & 917/Bang/2014 (Asst. Year - 1996-97 & 2001-02) M/S Ananda Social & Educational Trust, No.24, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle-17(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri S Sukumar, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 17-7-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-7-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT
Section 10(22)Section 12ASection 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

147 was were supplied to the assessee, therefore, the assessee cannot raise this issue when the matter was already carried to the Hon’ble High Court and remitted back to the AO. 12. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. 13. In the earlier round of litigation, the CIT(A) granted the relief

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

u/s 154 of the Act vide order dated 29.7.2022. Against this assessee went in appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC on 12.8.2022. This appeal of the assessee has been dismissed vide NFAC order dated 30.11.2022. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. The ground nos.1 to 3 are inter-related. Hence, we adjudicate all the grounds herein collectively

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

u/s. 148 is bad in law as no new material was found to justify the reopening . The learned AR submitted that all details including the balance sheet of the assessee in which all the three immovable properties owned by the assessee are disclosed was produced before the AO at the time of regular assessment and therefore the reopening is done

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)

u/s 143 [3] r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 5 of 13 [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer

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

u/s 143 [3] r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that

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

u/s 143 [3] r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that

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

reassessment proceedings and the AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2013, wherein the capital gains arising on account of JDA dated 30.01.2006 was determined at Rs.16,12,844/-. The assessee’s claim for exemption