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.

6 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai33Rajkot21Pune15Delhi15Jaipur14Amritsar10Nagpur9Surat8Ahmedabad8Patna6Bangalore6Raipur5Indore5Cuttack4Chennai2Chandigarh2Hyderabad2Jabalpur2Guwahati2Karnataka2Lucknow2SC1

Key Topics

Section 14814Section 148A9Section 271(1)(c)7Section 271F7Section 1476Penalty6Section 2744Section 1443Reassessment3

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1147/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

For Appellant: Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel
Section 246A(1)Section 253(1)Section 271FSection 283B

147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the [Principal Commissioner or]Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; [ (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (vi)or sub-clause (via)of clause

Section 2712
Addition to Income2
Limitation/Time-bar2

M/S HUBLI DHARWAD STOCK TRADING HOUSE ,HUBLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 1997-98,

ITA 891/BANG/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act require no adjudication by us at this stage. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeals for asst. year 1997-98, 2000-01 to 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06 are allowed as indicated above. 6. Assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.891, 893, 895, 897, 899 and 902/Bang/2017. 6.1 These are six appeals

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 910/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 148 read with section 148A of the Act are bad in law. C. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO COMPUTATION OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS ("LTCG"): 8. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in computing LTCG of Rs.59,53,488/-. 9. The CIT(A) and AO erred

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, MANDYA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1078/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is correct and the period of 6 years will apply in this case because escapement of income is more

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , MANDYA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1079/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is correct and the period of 6 years will apply in this case because escapement of income is more

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 249Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment as well, and best judgment assessment was made under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 29/02/2016 assessing the escaped income under the head capital gains Page 7 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 at Rs.6,55,000/-. Ld.AO, subsequently initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice, and 271F