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.

14 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 184clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi236Mumbai112Bangalore83Jaipur69Raipur35Ahmedabad29Chandigarh28Hyderabad23Lucknow22Kolkata14Chennai14Amritsar13Indore12Surat12Cochin6Guwahati5Allahabad4Rajkot3Pune3Dehradun3Cuttack3Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Patna2Jabalpur1Agra1Karnataka1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14720Section 143(2)11Section 153A10Addition to Income10Section 1489Disallowance9Section 143(3)7Section 116Section 142(1)

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)
6
Section 1325
Search & Seizure5
Undisclosed Income5
Section 147
Section 148
Section 2(15)

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 22. The ld. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate adopted the same arguments advanced in earlier assessment year 2014-15 in respect of “change of opinion”. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

reassessment order passed under\nsection 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the\ncase.\n22. The Id. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate adopted the same arguments\nadvanced in earlier assessment year 2014-15 in respect of \"change of\nopinion\". He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the\ncase

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

reassessment order passed under\nsection 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the\ncase.\n22. The Id. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate adopted the same arguments\nadvanced in earlier assessment year 2014-15 in respect of \"change of\nopinion\". He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the\ncase

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

184,53,19,919 (as on 31.03.2014) and Rs. 76,26,31,718 (as on 31.03.2013) and this being the amount reduced from the billed amount which the assessee had already charged its clients. Since the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, income :- 4 -: accrues the moment bill is raised by the assessee. When the bill raised by the assessee

UMAMAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144D of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay 1064 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3063/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings have been examined and answered through the queries raised in the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-01-2014. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that reopening assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid as there is no failure on the part

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 185/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings have been examined and answered through the queries raised in the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-01-2014. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that reopening assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid as there is no failure on the part

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3142/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings have been examined and answered through the queries raised in the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-01-2014. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that reopening assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid as there is no failure on the part

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return o{his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

184\n16,18,61,715\n30,21,72,409\n2016-17\n12,92,74,800\n16,92,44,747\n8,00,00,000\n37,85,19,547\n2017-18\n2,59,00,000\n14,73,62,400\n17,32,62,400\nTotal\n21,32,05,510\n20,92,79,984\n31,66,07,147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

184\n16,18,61,715\n30,21,72,409\n2016-17\n12,92,74,800\n16,92,44,747\n8,00,00,000\n37,85,19,547\n2017-18\n2,59,00,000\n14,73,62,400\n17,32,62,400\nTotal\n21,32,05,510\n20,92,79,984\n31,66,07,147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

184\n16,18,61,715\n30,21,72,409\n2016-17\n12,92,74,800\n16,92,44,747\n8,00,00,000\n37,85,19,547\n2017-18\n2,59,00,000\n14,73,62,400\n17,32,62,400\nTotal\n21,32,05,510\n20,92,79,984\n31,66,07,147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Section under\n| | | | order of | assessment | which\n| | | | CIT(A) | order | assessment order\n| | | | | | was passed\n| 1 | 1872/Chny/2025 | 2013-14 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3)\n| 2 | 1873/Chny/2025 | 2014-15 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3)\n| 3 | 1875/Chny/2025 | 2015-16 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3)\n| 4 | 1877/Chny/2025 | 2016-17 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

184\n16,18,61,715 30,21,72,409\n2016-17\n12,92,74,800 16,92,44,747\n8,00,00,000 37,85,19,547\n2017-18\n2,59,00,000 | 14,73,62,400\n17,32,62,400\nTotal 21,32,05,510 20,92,79,984 31,66,07,147