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.

21 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 270A(9)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur46Mumbai27Delhi25Rajkot24Bangalore21Cochin18Ahmedabad16Pune16Hyderabad13Chennai9Patna8Nagpur7Visakhapatnam7Agra6Lucknow6Surat6Raipur3Chandigarh2Kolkata2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14813Penalty12Section 2718Section 270A7Section 1476Section 148A6Section 2505Section 44A4Section 271B

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

4
Reassessment3
Addition to Income3
TDS2

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act. 5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A & 270AA of the Act herein below: 270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 542/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 18 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 546/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 18 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 543/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 489/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 492/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 495/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 541/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada Limited 2017- 270A 543/Bang/2024 | Not filed In ROI filed 18 u/s 148 Category F: 270A case where original return under section

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.2.2023 by making disallowance of Rs.91,47,331/- claimed deduction as cost of improvement. On going through the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings on or before the completion of assessment proceedings on the ground of under reporting of income in consequence of mis reporting. Further, on going through the show

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not\nbeen filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the\nAct\nIBM Canada Limited\n2017-\n270A\n543/Bang/2024\nNot filed\nIn ROI filed\n18\nu/s 148\nCategory F: 270A case where original return under section

GOPAL ANIL KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

section 148 of the Act, the proceedings were reopened after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT(Central). Thereafter, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.3.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 20.4.2022. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as well as notice u/s

TAKRAR RANGANATHA RAO NAGASHRE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BENGALURU

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

ITA 1122/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 29.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section

MURALIDHAR MYSORE SUNDARESH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 436/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 234ASection 27Section 270A(9)Section 271ASection 69A

e extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee. 3. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction; 4. The entire reassessment proceedings have been rendered bad in law due to improper / lack of service of notice under sections 148 and 143(2) of the Act. Muralidhar Mysore Sundaresh

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

147 r.w.s 144B dated, 15-03-2023 is opposed to the facts of the case, weight of evidence, law applicable and the principles of natural justice; and, therefore, liable to be vacated as void. 2. The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC fell in error in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that tax/advance tax payable u/s 249(4) r.w.s