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.

95 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 35(2)(ia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai166Delhi130Hyderabad100Chennai95Bangalore50Kolkata48Chandigarh41Indore37Raipur30Jaipur27Cuttack18Ahmedabad17Jodhpur14Lucknow9Rajkot8Surat8Guwahati5Patna4Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Pune2Varanasi2Telangana1Uttarakhand1SC1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay48Limitation/Time-bar45Section 13243Section 153A43Section 14830Reopening of Assessment26Section 143(3)25Section 14A24Section 147

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

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

23
Disallowance22
Deduction19
Reassessment16
ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 16 :: 8.1 The AO disallowed the consultancy expenditure claimed by the assessee for non-deduction of TDS by observing that the assessee had not obtained requisite NIL deduction certificate u/s 195 of the Act and therefore it ought to have deducted

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

ia) of the IT Act. The payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person of the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as per the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account. In view

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

ia) of the IT Act. The payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person of the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as per the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account. In view

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

ia) of the IT Act. The payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person of the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as per the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account. In view

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2966/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of\n1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n2[Explanation 1.]—For the purposes of this section, —Valuation Officerll shall have\nthe

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 86/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 492/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 90/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 496/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 93/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 493/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 491/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
Section 148

ia) of the IT\nAct.\nThe payments mentioned supra have been made by the assessee M/s Royal\nSundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person\nof the time of credit of the said sum and payment failed to deduct tax at source as\nper the applicable rates of TDS and its remittance into Govt. Account.\nIn view

ACIT, CENT CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

2,27,428/-, on account of undervaluation of closing stock. 4. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded as per which income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment, on account of under-assessment of income. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 of :-5-: ITA. No: 511/Chny/2022 the Act, dated 01.10.2018 was issued

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

35,92,595/- Total : 252,46,02,707/- I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 4 -: 782/05 & 177/09. The assessee claims this expenditure as allowable deduction either under section 31(i) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment rejecting the claim of the assessee and treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure on the ground

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

35,92,595/- Total : 252,46,02,707/- I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 4 -: 782/05 & 177/09. The assessee claims this expenditure as allowable deduction either under section 31(i) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment rejecting the claim of the assessee and treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure on the ground

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

35,92,595/- Total : 252,46,02,707/- I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 4 -: 782/05 & 177/09. The assessee claims this expenditure as allowable deduction either under section 31(i) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment rejecting the claim of the assessee and treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure on the ground

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

35,92,595/- Total : 252,46,02,707/- I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 4 -: 782/05 & 177/09. The assessee claims this expenditure as allowable deduction either under section 31(i) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment rejecting the claim of the assessee and treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure on the ground

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

35,92,595/- Total : 252,46,02,707/- I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 4 -: 782/05 & 177/09. The assessee claims this expenditure as allowable deduction either under section 31(i) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment rejecting the claim of the assessee and treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure on the ground