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.

73 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai173Delhi145Chennai95Bangalore73Amritsar38Kolkata25Raipur24Jaipur22Rajkot20Indore16Agra14Pune12Ahmedabad12Hyderabad10Jodhpur10Lucknow9Chandigarh8Surat5Cuttack4Nagpur2Cochin1Dehradun1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 148128Section 14764Section 14A62Section 143(3)47Addition to Income42Disallowance33Section 13229Section 153A23Section 40A(3)

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 07.02.2020 and other statutory notices were issued on different dates. On examination of the documents assessee has made cash payment of more than Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure incurred which are debited in the P & L A/c which is in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act for both

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 143(2)22
Reassessment21
Reopening of Assessment21

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 220/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 292/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 221/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 shall have no over-riding effect on this provision. When the new provisions for assessment or reassessment in case of search under Section 132 of the Act section. Even otherwise we find that the notice under Section 153A(1)(a) was issued on 24.9.2009 wherein the Assessing Officer has given time period for furnishing

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

ITA 1376/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Standing Counsel to Dept. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

40A(3), 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax act, 1961 which could have been made in order passed u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Income. Tax Act, 1961. Such order is not an erroneous order as he has followed the Jurisdictional High Court judgment. 4. In CIT Vs Parmanand M Patel (2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj) held that

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

MALLANGOUDA SANKAGOUDASHI vs. DCIT,

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment is not sustainable. At the outset, we note that though the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) however the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of N. Govindaraju Vs ITO (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, JCIT(DR)
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 40a

147 of the Act dated 29/12/2009 with addition u/s 40(a)(i) amounting to Rs.1,02,98,748/-, disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.27,97,571/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee challenged the validity and addition with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considering the grounds of appeal and the additions, has partly allowed the appeal

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 320/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, JCIT(DR)
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 40a

147 of the Act dated 29/12/2009 with addition u/s 40(a)(i) amounting to Rs.1,02,98,748/-, disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.27,97,571/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee challenged the validity and addition with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considering the grounds of appeal and the additions, has partly allowed the appeal

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, JCIT(DR)
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 40a

147 of the Act dated 29/12/2009 with addition u/s 40(a)(i) amounting to Rs.1,02,98,748/-, disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.27,97,571/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee challenged the validity and addition with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considering the grounds of appeal and the additions, has partly allowed the appeal

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1660/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1661/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent