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.

4 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 245D(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai51Hyderabad43Delhi27Allahabad16Indore11Chandigarh9Chennai8Surat8Cochin6Pune6Kolkata6Jaipur5Bangalore4Varanasi2Lucknow2Telangana1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 153C19Section 10A4Section 153A3Section 153A(1)3Section 143(3)3Section 1323Addition to Income3Section 133A(5)2Section 153

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2(3), BANGALURU vs. SHRI T.H SURESH BABU, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1890/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, ITP
Section 133A(5)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

u/s. 153C of the Act is valid or not. For this purpose, we will go through the provisions of section 153A, 153B & 153C of the Act as follows:- Assessment in case of search or requisition. 153A. (1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148 , section 149, section 151 and section 153 , in the case of a person

2
Search & Seizure2

THE SENATE,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 36

u/s 153C of the Act is valid in law or not? Therefore, it is necessary to refer ITA Nos.1475 to 1481/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 23 to the provisions of sections 153A, 153B and 153C of the Act which are reproduced hereunder: ‘153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition.— Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DR. P. DAYANANDA PAI,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

147" additions made on the basis of Hand written seized material is Rs.5,38,82,500/- the details of which is given in page 2 to 4 of the Said Order as mentioned below. Voucher Amount in Date Name Evidence Type Rs. Reflected in Sri.Arunkum DTTE + 15.10.2004 ar Payment 45,00,000 Asked in SCN on various Salarpuria