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.

97 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi174Mumbai138Chennai97Bangalore89Jaipur50Chandigarh41Kolkata37Lucknow24Nagpur18Pune16Ahmedabad14Indore10Cochin10Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad9Agra8Dehradun7Raipur7Patna7Jodhpur6Allahabad5Surat5Karnataka3Panaji3Amritsar3Telangana2Jabalpur2Rajkot2Cuttack1Guwahati1SC1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 147118Section 143(3)75Section 153A54Section 14848Addition to Income48Reopening of Assessment47Section 15444Section 1136Disallowance

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3250/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3256/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

34
Section 246A33
Deduction26
Reassessment25

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3257/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2849/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3252/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3258/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3253/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does not say: ‘I am not liable to be assessed at all under any provision of the Act which is what is connoted

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

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1302/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

147 dated 30/12/2016 Less: Relief given by CIT(A)-1, Trichy [Undisclosed interest income Rs. 56,97,800/-minus Rs.52,59,770/-] : Rs. 4,38,080/- ---------------------- Gross Total Income : Rs. 1,10,20,480/- ---------------------- 6. It is seen that the above order is non-speaking and does not spell out compliance with the directions issued

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1301/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

147 dated 30/12/2016 Less: Relief given by CIT(A)-1, Trichy [Undisclosed interest income Rs. 56,97,800/-minus Rs.52,59,770/-] : Rs. 4,38,080/- ---------------------- Gross Total Income : Rs. 1,10,20,480/- ---------------------- 6. It is seen that the above order is non-speaking and does not spell out compliance with the directions issued

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1300/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

147 dated 30/12/2016 Less: Relief given by CIT(A)-1, Trichy [Undisclosed interest income Rs. 56,97,800/-minus Rs.52,59,770/-] : Rs. 4,38,080/- ---------------------- Gross Total Income : Rs. 1,10,20,480/- ---------------------- 6. It is seen that the above order is non-speaking and does not spell out compliance with the directions issued

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1303/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

147 dated 30/12/2016 Less: Relief given by CIT(A)-1, Trichy [Undisclosed interest income Rs. 56,97,800/-minus Rs.52,59,770/-] : Rs. 4,38,080/- ---------------------- Gross Total Income : Rs. 1,10,20,480/- ---------------------- 6. It is seen that the above order is non-speaking and does not spell out compliance with the directions issued

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1304/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

147 dated 30/12/2016 Less: Relief given by CIT(A)-1, Trichy [Undisclosed interest income Rs. 56,97,800/-minus Rs.52,59,770/-] : Rs. 4,38,080/- ---------------------- Gross Total Income : Rs. 1,10,20,480/- ---------------------- 6. It is seen that the above order is non-speaking and does not spell out compliance with the directions issued

SHRI GOPAL YADEV SELVA KUMAR,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, VELLORE

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

ITA 111/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Gopal Yadav Selva Kumar, V. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Vellore Main Road, Ward-2, 1St Street, Arcot, Vellore-632 503. Vellore. [Pan: Btsps 5973 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2022

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Reassessment is bad in law while rectification proceeding u/s 154 is under pending: (i) The issue of notice u/s 147

THE KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. CIT (APPEALS), -

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

ITA 583/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147. As far as merits of the case are concerned, there cannot be any case of grievance to the assessee because the Ld. AO did not make any additions. In fact in all fairness it is noted that the Ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 to examine an aspect of the percentage of rural

THE KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. CIT (APPEALS), -

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

ITA 584/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147. As far as merits of the case are concerned, there cannot be any case of grievance to the assessee because the Ld. AO did not make any additions. In fact in all fairness it is noted that the Ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 to examine an aspect of the percentage of rural