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.

254 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 72(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi856Mumbai830Bangalore339Jaipur255Chennai254Ahmedabad219Kolkata132Hyderabad123Chandigarh110Raipur78Rajkot70Indore65Visakhapatnam60Surat58Amritsar54Pune51Cochin45Lucknow41Guwahati39Nagpur29Telangana27Dehradun17Cuttack16Allahabad15Jodhpur14Karnataka8Patna5Kerala3Orissa3Panaji2Varanasi2Ranchi2SC2Agra1Rajasthan1Calcutta1Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 148102Section 14768Section 143(3)66Section 13255Section 153A44Addition to Income41Limitation/Time-bar40Condonation of Delay31Reassessment

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1259/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/-\n2014-15\n2015-16\nRs.34,93,08,960/-\nRs.57,33,60,374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity

Showing 1–20 of 254 · Page 1 of 13

...
24
Disallowance22
Section 26320
Section 143(2)18

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1257/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/-\n2014-15\n2015-16\nRs.34,93,08,960/-\nRs.57,33,60,374/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1231/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/- |\n| 2014-15 | | Rs.57,33,60,374/- |\n| 2015-16 | Rs.34,93,08,960/- | Rs.61,74,24,524/- |\n| 2016-17 | Rs.45,46,48,400/- | Rs.69,79,90,661/- |\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1256/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

72,770/- Rs.57,33,60,374/ Rs.57,33,60,374/- 2014-15 Rs.34,93,08,960/- Rs.61,74,24,524/ Rs.61,74,24,524/- 2015-16 Rs.45,46,48,400/- Rs.69,79,90,661/ Rs.69,79,90,661/- 2016-17 Aggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before Aggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1236/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

72,770/- Rs.57,33,60,374/ Rs.57,33,60,374/- 2014-15 Rs.34,93,08,960/- Rs.61,74,24,524/ Rs.61,74,24,524/- 2015-16 Rs.45,46,48,400/- Rs.69,79,90,661/ Rs.69,79,90,661/- 2016-17 Aggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before Aggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1232/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/-\n2014-15\n2015-16\nRs.34,93,08,960/-\nRs.57,33,60,374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1163/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/-\n2014-15\n2015-16\nRs.34,93,08,960/-\nRs.57,33,60,374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

ITA 1234/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

72,770/- |\n| 2014-15 | | Rs.57,33,60,374/- |\n| 2015-16 | Rs.34,93,08,960/- | Rs.61,74,24,524/- |\n| 2016-17 | Rs.45,46,48,400/- | Rs.69,79,90,661/- |\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

147-151 of the Act (as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021). The Revenue challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1254/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1238/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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

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

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

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

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)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the assessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment order. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2034/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s