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.

48 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 234B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai435Delhi431Bangalore207Ahmedabad103Hyderabad73Jaipur65Chennai48Kolkata41Pune36Indore19Rajkot18Lucknow18Nagpur16Surat16Chandigarh14Agra13Amritsar13Visakhapatnam13Patna12Dehradun10Cochin8Ranchi6Allahabad5Cuttack5Karnataka4Jodhpur3Telangana2Raipur1Panaji1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Section 153A57Addition to Income37Section 13236Section 14726Section 234A25Section 14823Section 234B22Reassessment

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1793/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

22
Section 143(2)21
Capital Gains9
Unexplained Investment8

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1792/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1791/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 1794/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran,AdvoateFor Respondent: Mr.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(4)Section 263

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

u/s 148 was issued’’. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had filed a letter dated 12.11.2010 which stated as under:- Date: 12/11/2010 To The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(I), Chennai - 34 Sub:!T Assessment - AY 08-09 Ref Notice u/s.143(2) dated 12.08.2009 Dear Sir, Further to our appearance before your goodself

ARUNACHALAM SRINIVASAN,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1607/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to invoke

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. A. SRINIVASAN, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1527/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to invoke

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 24/CHNY/2012[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2012[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2003-2004

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 22/CHNY/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2002-2003

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 25/CHNY/2012[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 26/CHNY/2012[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in indirectly confirming the addition of interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1808/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

147 [or reassessment under section 153A on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of such re-assessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total [income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid.” 7. Even, the provisions of section 153A, when

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1807/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

147 [or reassessment under section 153A on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of such re-assessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total [income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid.” 7. Even, the provisions of section 153A, when