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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai26Cochin21Jaipur20Chennai10Ahmedabad7Kolkata7Rajkot6Pune6Chandigarh4Visakhapatnam3Raipur3Lucknow2Guwahati2Nagpur2Indore2Delhi1Agra1Bangalore1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 14838Section 14723Section 14412Section 271(1)(c)10Section 271(1)8Section 153(2)8Section 271B7Reassessment7Section 144B6Addition to Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason for initiation

5
Cash Deposit4
Limitation/Time-bar4

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason for initiation

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay. It was stated that

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1292/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay. It was stated that

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1291/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay. It was stated that

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1290/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay. It was stated that

MOHIDEEN SAIB IBRAHIM,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VELLORE

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

section 271B of the Act for not electronically uploading the audit report before the due date for filing return of income. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that audit was completed and uploaded by CA on 14.10.2016 and the same approved appellant electronically on 18.03.2017. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Income tax return was filed

PALANISAMY JAYAKUMAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 2969/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are void ab initio. 3. The Ld. DR relied on the order passed by the AO & First Appellate Authority (FAA) 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 16.03.2023, we note that the same

PALANISAMY JAYAKUMAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 2968/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are void ab initio. 3. The Ld. DR relied on the order passed by the AO & First Appellate Authority (FAA) 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 16.03.2023, we note that the same

PALANISAMY JAYAKUMAR,TRIUPPUR vs. IOT WARD 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2967/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are void ab initio. 3. The Ld. DR relied on the order passed by the AO & First Appellate Authority (FAA) 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 16.03.2023, we note that the same