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.

15 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 50C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai66Delhi59Jaipur53Ahmedabad45Hyderabad23Raipur22Surat21Bangalore16Lucknow16Agra15Chennai15Kolkata13Visakhapatnam13Indore12Nagpur11Pune9Chandigarh4Patna3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Rajkot2Jodhpur2Amritsar1Varanasi1Allahabad1Panaji1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Section 14726Section 50C20Section 14814Reassessment13Capital Gains12Section 26311Long Term Capital Gains6Addition to Income

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

6
Revision u/s 2635
Section 1544
Section 50C(2)4

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

2 to section 147 , it must be on material and it should have nexus for holding such opinion contrary to what has been expressed earlier. Even after the amendment of section 147 mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings for reassessment merely by resorting to Explanation 1 to section 147

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2966/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

147 r.w.s 144 / 144B of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred as the 'Act'). No return of income for AY-2014-15 was filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 also. In response to show cause notice u/s 144, the assessee had informed that it had purchased an immovable property for Rs.3

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3096/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

147 of the Act on 27.03.2014 and determined total income of Rs. 16,45,420/- by making additions of Rs. 13,49,975/- towards computation of capital gains from sale of property by adopting full value of consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. :-4-: ITA. No: 3096/Chny/2019 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3084/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains at ₹.60,02,099/- was determined by the Assessing Officer against the long term capital loss admitted by the assessee at ₹.25,70,937/-. On its appeal, vide order in I.T.A. No. 2307/Mds/2013 dated 11.09.2015, the ITAT has remitted the matter back

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3086/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains at ₹.60,02,099/- was determined by the Assessing Officer against the long term capital loss admitted by the assessee at ₹.25,70,937/-. On its appeal, vide order in I.T.A. No. 2307/Mds/2013 dated 11.09.2015, the ITAT has remitted the matter back

BALASUBRAMANIAN ADITYAN LEGAL HEIR OF DR. B SIVANTHI ADITYAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1700/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1700/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Balasubramanian Adityan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, Income Tax, No. 6, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aampa7576R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri Pmn Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Reassessment Made Us 147: (I) The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Made U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate for Shri PMN Bhagavath Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C(2)

u/s 147 of the Income tax Act. 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 1700/Chny/18 (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to note that the reassessment has been made without adhering to the provisions off Sec 159 of the Income tax Act. 1961. (iii) The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals had erred in relying on the order

EDWIN SELVARAJ SUNDRARAJ,SALEM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(4), SALEM

ITA 783/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 783/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 247Section 50C

2(47)(v) of the Act, deemed transfer took place for the assessment year 2013-14, and thus, the question of computation of capital gains for assessment year 2014-15 does not arise, when the POA holder transferred the property in favour of his wife Mrs. Krishna. :-4-: ITA. No:783 /Chny/2022 4. The AO, however, was not convinced with

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

ITA 1935/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54FSection 5O

reassessment order is not erroneous on the aspect of applying the provisions of Section 50C, when the same was not the subject matter of this proceedings and hence revising this order is outside the scope of Section 263, more particularly on the aspect of Section 50C. 5.4 From the detailing made above, the ld.AR submitted that it can be easily

KALYANASUNDARAM BHARATH HARI,CHITTLAPAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX WARD 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

50C and within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for a sum Rs.29,20,000/-. Therefore, for the year under consideration, the assessee had undervalued his inform from long term capital gains out of the above said transactions and provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to sec.147 are applicable to facts of this case

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1853/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.N.Rajan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13. Abdul Lathief Mohammed Arif (Vs.) ITO Ward 5(2) :: 2 :: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee. He filed his original return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 26.07.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.9

P.PANJURAJAN,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69

147 and notice u/s 148 dated 13.03.2013 was issued. In response, the appellant filed a letter on 27.11.2013, requesting to treat the return of income already filed on 31.12.2009 as the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 on 27.03.2014 adding Rs. 10,16,000/- u/s