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.

7 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai34Chandigarh21Delhi17Jaipur15Indore10Jodhpur10Raipur9Chennai7Ahmedabad6Hyderabad5Bangalore5Rajkot5Allahabad3Guwahati3Cochin3Lucknow2Pune2Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)15Section 14715Section 2638Section 286Reassessment5Capital Gains4Revision u/s 2634Depreciation3Disallowance

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

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction u/s

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

3
Addition to Income3
Section 1482
Business Income2

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

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction u/s

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

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction u/s

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

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction u/s

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1707/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2308/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. OASYS CYBERMATICS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.0.52 crore. Accordingly, reassessment u/s. 147