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.

36 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi347Mumbai307Bangalore184Jaipur110Hyderabad80Ahmedabad78Pune38Chennai36Kolkata26Agra24Cochin23Rajkot20Indore20Visakhapatnam19Dehradun15Nagpur15Ranchi15Lucknow13Chandigarh12Amritsar11Allahabad11Jodhpur10Patna9Guwahati9Karnataka4Raipur4SC4Surat4K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Panaji1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 153A45Section 143(3)43Section 14731Section 13228Addition to Income28Section 234A25Section 80I20Section 153C18Section 13914Reassessment

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1808/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A (1)….. (2)….. “(3) Where the return of income for any assessment year, required [by a notice under section 148 or section 153A] issued [after the determination of income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or after the completion of an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147, is furnished after

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

11
Search & Seizure8
Unexplained Investment8

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1807/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A (1)….. (2)….. “(3) Where the return of income for any assessment year, required [by a notice under section 148 or section 153A] issued [after the determination of income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or after the completion of an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147, is furnished after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. A. SRINIVASAN, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1527/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

234A & 234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer

ARUNACHALAM SRINIVASAN,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1607/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

234A & 234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

reassessment proceedings should be initiated in the pre- amended section. The conditions precedent for initiation of action under section 147(a) or 147(b) of the pre-amended situation, is highlighted above. The amended provisions are contextually different and the cumulative conditions spelt out in clause (a) or (b) of section 147 prior to its amendment, are not present

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2900/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

234A, is mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) is mandatory then, other consequence of the same failure of the assessee cannot be directory and the same is also mandatory. It is, therefore, held that the provisions of the proviso to section 10A(1A) is mandatory

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2899/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

234A, is mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) is mandatory then, other consequence of the same failure of the assessee cannot be directory and the same is also mandatory. It is, therefore, held that the provisions of the proviso to section 10A(1A) is mandatory

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2898/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

234A, is mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) is mandatory then, other consequence of the same failure of the assessee cannot be directory and the same is also mandatory. It is, therefore, held that the provisions of the proviso to section 10A(1A) is mandatory

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 188/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

234A, is mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) is mandatory then, other consequence of the same failure of the assessee cannot be directory and the same is also mandatory. It is, therefore, held that the provisions of the proviso to section 10A(1A) is mandatory

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the grounds raised by the assessee by way of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are partly allowed

ITA 1658/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292C

reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years.'' From going through the above provisions, we observe that sub-section (1) of section 153A starts with the word ''Notwithstanding anything contained in section

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1791/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

234A and 234B as only consequential without considering the claim of the appellant. 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer was not correct in levying interest under section 234B from the 1st day of the assessment year till the date of completion of the assessment made on 20/3/2013 when the regular assessment was completed on 31/12/2009 itself

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1793/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

234A and 234B as only consequential without considering the claim of the appellant. 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer was not correct in levying interest under section 234B from the 1st day of the assessment year till the date of completion of the assessment made on 20/3/2013 when the regular assessment was completed on 31/12/2009 itself

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1792/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

234A and 234B as only consequential without considering the claim of the appellant. 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer was not correct in levying interest under section 234B from the 1st day of the assessment year till the date of completion of the assessment made on 20/3/2013 when the regular assessment was completed on 31/12/2009 itself

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1794/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

234A and 234B as only consequential without considering the claim of the appellant. 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer was not correct in levying interest under section 234B from the 1st day of the assessment year till the date of completion of the assessment made on 20/3/2013 when the regular assessment was completed on 31/12/2009 itself

J RAY MCDERMOTT ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

234A of the Act of INR 12,86,768 not appreciating the fact that the return of income was filed by the Appellant on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the said order. 11. That on the facts, and circumstances of the case