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 801A(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi29Mumbai23Hyderabad23Indore15Chennai9Ahmedabad6Patna6Kolkata5Rajkot4Bangalore4Jaipur4Lucknow3Raipur1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14713Section 36(1)(viia)4Addition to Income4Deduction3Reassessment3Section 143(3)2Section 80I2Reopening of Assessment2

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)

801A(10) has merged with the order of the appellate authorities as a whole and hence, it was no longer amenable to the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by virtue of second proviso to section 147. On this principles also, since in both the assessment years, the issue was originally considered and agitated at the level of the ITAT, the reopening

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

reassessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2013 determining total income at Rs.32,38,19,999 due to addition of Rs.23,67,63,798 considering the unaccounted sale consideration relating to sale of property at Delhi. 4. Before reopening the assessment, the AO was in possession of information that in the assessment concluded

GMR TAMBARAM TINDIVANAM EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result that the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 16

801A is to be allowed during current year if, allowed in earlier assessment years. In other words, principle of consistency needs to be followed. Reliance is placed on Bangalore ITAT decision in ITA No 1132 & 1133/Bang/2018. 11. The strengthening of the existing four lanes is required to be treated as a development of infrastructure activity in terms of various terms

M/S. VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1837/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: The Cit (A) & The Itat, The Said Issue Of Determination Of Profit For The Purpose Of 801A(10) Has Merged With The Order Of The Appellate Authorities As A Whole & Hence, It Was No Longer Amenable To The Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 By Virtue Of Second Proviso To Section 147. On This Principles Also, Since In Both The Assessment Years, The Issue Was Originally Considered & Agitated At The Level Of The Itat, The Reopening On The Same Issue Is To Be Considered As Bad In Law. We Need Not Examine The Various Case Law Relied On This Issue. Suffice To Say That On Facts & In Law The Issue Having Merged With The Orders Of Itat Was Not Amenable For Reassessment".

Section 147Section 80I

801A(10) has merged with the order of the appellate authorities as a whole and hence, it was no longer amenable to the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by virtue of second proviso to section 147. On this principles also, since in both the assessment years, the issue was originally considered and agitated at the level of the ITAT, the reopening