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.

35 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Delhi63Bangalore35Hyderabad27Chennai26Jaipur23Kolkata22Lucknow11Pune10Indore7Cochin6Cuttack5Ahmedabad4Calcutta2Varanasi2Karnataka1Jodhpur1Raipur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 153A60Section 14838Section 143(3)33Section 14732Section 10B30Section 1025Section 10A25Deduction21Addition to Income

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.01.2014 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority.” Admittedly, the validity of deduction under section 10B was looked into for assessment year 2001-02 in the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act. There is no dispute that Page 9 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 the said proceedings were

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

19
Disallowance14
Reassessment13
Reopening of Assessment10

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.01.2014 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority.” Admittedly, the validity of deduction under section 10B was looked into for assessment year 2001-02 in the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act. There is no dispute that Page 9 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 the said proceedings were

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LTU),, BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 147. 9. The Assessee also contended that no re-opening is possible on the basis of same materials. It was argued that the AO re-opened the assessment to examine the very same issue of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) ITA Nos.1832 and 1837/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 22 of the Act, without any fresh tangible materials. It was pointed

INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment vide order dated 31/10/13 for both assessment years under consideration by denying following:  deduction under section 10B of the Act pertaining to functional genomics division.  And other miscellaneous disallowances made. Ld.AO however, allowed deduction u/s 10B of the Act, in respect of profit derived from ‘Bio-informatics’ division in both years. 3.1 Subsequently, Ld.CIT issued notice under section

M/S. BIOCON LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

reassessment proceedings was initiated based on a mere "change of opinion" and therefore lacking jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and hence the proceedings are deemed to invalid and void ab initio. 3. Disallowance of clinical trial expenditure in the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1811/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

reassessment proceeding is invalid. 2.5. The learned lower authorities are not justified in failing to appreciate that Section 149 governs that field which is not covered by proviso to Section 147 and therefore the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) does not apply to the case of the Appellant. 3. As regards Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the action

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1810/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

reassessment proceeding is invalid. 2.5. The learned lower authorities are not justified in failing to appreciate that Section 149 governs that field which is not covered by proviso to Section 147 and therefore the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) does not apply to the case of the Appellant. 3. As regards Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the action

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

10B, 10BB and 3CD are available on record of the Learned AO. We believe that the act of the Learned AO, while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the. Act, is bad in law as, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of section 143(3) of-the Act, which reads

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 174/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 930/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 931/BANG/2017[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 176/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 175/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 928/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1460/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(A)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

reassessment is bad in law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not have recorded the reason that the income has escaped assessment because of the loss of the earlier year have to be set-off before allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act, as the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench had held that such

V.S.L. MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1854/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ACIT vs. M/S VSL MINING CO. P. LTD.,,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 204/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4 , BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3418/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

10B and 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The final order of assessment after directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 31.3.2014. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the same is stated to be pending. 3. The AO issued