BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

756 results for “reassessment”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,145Delhi1,823Chennai756Ahmedabad504Jaipur440Bangalore430Hyderabad376Kolkata374Pune270Chandigarh252Raipur190Rajkot184Indore168Cochin132Amritsar131Surat131Patna130Nagpur100Visakhapatnam73Agra71Guwahati70Jodhpur68Cuttack59Ranchi53Lucknow50Dehradun32Allahabad23Panaji14Jabalpur3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 147101Section 143(3)79Section 14873Addition to Income64Section 153A55Reassessment46Section 26337Reopening of Assessment28Section 143(2)25

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 287/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 756 · Page 1 of 38

...
Disallowance21
Section 271(1)(c)20
Business Income18
ITA 283/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 285/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 286/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1465/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

business income ( Net Profit ) of the Appellant @ 2.21% income ( Net Profit ) of the Appellant @ 2.21% of the turnover of the turnover for each assessment year under consideration. for each assessment year under consideration. 7.5.23 Further the AO while determining the taxable income of the Further the AO while determining the taxable income of the Further the AO while determining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1466/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

business income ( Net Profit ) of the Appellant @ 2.21% income ( Net Profit ) of the Appellant @ 2.21% of the turnover of the turnover for each assessment year under consideration. for each assessment year under consideration. 7.5.23 Further the AO while determining the taxable income of the Further the AO while determining the taxable income of the Further the AO while determining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

ITA 1471/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintain debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance and therefore made disallowance ITA Nos.1471 & 1472/Chny/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

ITA 1472/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintain debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance and therefore made disallowance ITA Nos.1471 & 1472/Chny/2023

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 915/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

business income of the appellant for the respective assessment years Considering the same transaction under the nomenclature as unexplained expenditure tantamount to taxing the same transaction(s) twice which is against the basic principles of taxation. Therefore, the undersigned is of the considered view the addition(s) contemplated as unexplained expenditure in respect of unaccounted cash transactions entered into with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 913/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

business income of the appellant for the respective assessment years Considering the same transaction under the nomenclature as unexplained expenditure tantamount to taxing the same transaction(s) twice which is against the basic principles of taxation. Therefore, the undersigned is of the considered view the addition(s) contemplated as unexplained expenditure in respect of unaccounted cash transactions entered into with

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

business of :-2-: ITA. No:1366/Chny/2024 manufacturing tiles, sanitary wares, taps and bath fittings. The assessee filed its original return of income (RoI) u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) admitting an income of Rs.9,85,94,880/-. A search u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on 26.02.2021 in the assessee’s group and consequently

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 459/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 9(1)(vii)

reassessment\nproceedings against the assessee has been reversed by the CIT(A).\nThe DRP however, vide its order dated 29.11.2024 reiterated the\nsame view of the AO in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the\nDRP's directions dated 29.11.2024, the impugned final assessment\norder was passed on 06.12.2024. Aggrieved by the final assessment\norder, assessee filed the present appeal

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

business carried out by the assessee during the relevant assessment year and income shown as exceptional item of Rs.32,65,14,574/- was not offered to tax in the profit & loss account. Accordingly, reassessment

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

business carried out by the assessee during the relevant assessment year and income shown as exceptional item of Rs.32,65,14,574/- was not offered to tax in the profit & loss account. Accordingly, reassessment

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

business carried out by the assessee during the relevant assessment year and income shown as exceptional item of Rs.32,65,14,574/- was not offered to tax in the profit & loss account. Accordingly, reassessment

M/S RESULTS INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 399/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

business. Subsequently, the case was reopened to disallow certain expenditure by holding an opinion that the same did not have any nexus with the interest income. In the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. KAMATCHIPURAM VELLINGIRI JAYARAMAN, COIMBATORE

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CITFor Respondent: Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &
Section 147Section 148

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148” for allowing the appeal of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business income is justified and sustainable in law. The\nId.DR therefore, prayed that the impugned order of the Id.CIT(A), deleting the\nsaid addition, be set aside and the order of the AO be restored.\n23. With respect to the issue concerning the addition on account of\nunsecured loans, the Id.DR contended that the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1473/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated expenses. On appeal, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of rejecting the books of accounts holding it to be unreliable but estimated the profits from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 14/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income-tax purposes wherein the expenses debited were higher than the expenses found debited in the books maintained in ‘ori’ and therefore made disallowance on account of inflated expenses. On appeal, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of rejecting the books of accounts holding it to be unreliable but estimated the profits from