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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi37Jaipur15Raipur10Indore9Amritsar7Ahmedabad7Chennai6Bangalore5Mumbai4Nagpur4Surat4Dehradun3Chandigarh3Agra2Jodhpur2Pune2Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1Hyderabad1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 1488Section 54B8Section 1475Capital Gains4Section 143(1)3Section 543Section 54F3Long Term Capital Gains3Deduction

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

54B, 54D, 54 E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54 H, be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place”. The gains on transfer of these participation rights is, therefore, required to be I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024
3
Exemption3
Reassessment3
AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

reassessment is bad in law. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale of agricultural land is exempt. 13. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the sale of agricultural land as income from capital gain. 14. For that the Commissioner

R.JAYASELVI,PONDCHERRY vs. ITO WARD 1, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 927/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.927/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. R. Jayaselvi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.27, Mariamman Koil Street, Ward-1, Edayarapalayam, Pondicherry. Pondicherry 605 007. [Pan Awapj 1581D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 54Section 54B

Section 54B of the ITA No.927 /2018 :- 4 -: Act of "14,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, based on the information on record, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.54B of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 07.11.2015. In response to which the assessee submitted that

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

reassessment order dated 13.12.2019, passed u/s. 143(3) read with 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘ACT’ in short] [‘ACT’ in short], for the Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15, was confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the stated, the assessee is an individual who filed

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

Section 147 & proviso to it were not fulfilled. The Ld.AR submitted that initiation of reassessment would have been permissible Mr. Murali Krishna Yenugula :: 7 :: only if the AO was having in his possession fresh and tangible material which came in his possession subsequent to passing of the order u/s.143(3) and its relation with formation of belief should have been

P. RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

reassessment order was passed vide order dated 26.12.2011 by making addition on sale of agricultural land by assessee treating the same as business transaction, adding a sum of Rs.2,23,90,000/-. Aggrieved against this assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before CIT(A) challenged the reopening of assessment and CIT(A) in ITA No.106/11-12 dated