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.

570 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,814Delhi1,316Chennai570Bangalore543Kolkata313Jaipur308Ahmedabad307Hyderabad275Pune157Chandigarh141Raipur97Indore95Rajkot85Surat78Nagpur53Lucknow49Visakhapatnam49Amritsar44Cuttack43Patna40Cochin39Jodhpur35Telangana30Guwahati27Karnataka26Agra20Dehradun16Allahabad12SC6Panaji6Kerala6Ranchi5Jabalpur4Varanasi3Orissa2Calcutta1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)120Section 148108Section 147101Addition to Income59Section 26349Reassessment39Disallowance37Deduction31Reopening of Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 2Section 35

147 of the Act vide order dated 09.12.2019 09.12.2019 assessing total loss at Rs. Rs.(-) 301,90,10,983/- in in which which several several additions/disallowances were made, which llowances were made, which inter alia included disallowance included disallowance of the normal deduction of the normal deduction of Rs.21,98,62,276/- originally allowed in respect originally allowed in respect

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

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 570 · Page 1 of 29

...
30
Section 14A25
Section 1124
Section 153A22
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

deduction u/s 80IA was made, either under the Rectification proceedings U/s 154 (AY 2007-08) or reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

deduction u/s 80IA was made, either under the Rectification proceedings U/s 154 (AY 2007-08) or reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

deduction u/s 80IA was made, either under the Rectification proceedings U/s 154 (AY 2007-08) or reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

deduction u/s 80IA was made, either under the Rectification proceedings U/s 154 (AY 2007-08) or reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

deduction could be entertained by the Assessing Officer in the absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised return

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2020/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2105/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2005/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2003/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 242/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 259/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2004/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2019/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

WHEELS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2341/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

u/s 147, AO could bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under section 148 and where reassessment is made under section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the AO’s jurisdiction is confined to only such

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3356/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

Reassessment Order dated 3.6.93 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act especially when the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.1989 was cancelled by C.l.T., 11 Shri. R. Panneerselvam AY: 2008-09 Amritsar vide his order dated 28.2.92 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and no fresh order was passed pursuant thereto

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 503/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(1)Section 80ISection 80l

deduction under sec 80IA, which was disallowed in the original assessment was subject matter of appeal up-to the High Court and hence the issue of allowance of relief under sec 80IA merged with the Appellate orders and cannot be reassessed u/s 147