Search: reassessment u/s 147 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

59 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,862 Mumbai1,783 Bangalore575 Chennai547 Jaipur525 Ahmedabad418 Hyderabad388 Kolkata356 Pune237 Chandigarh201 Surat154 Indore148 Raipur142 Amritsar125 Rajkot124 Visakhapatnam120 Guwahati65 Lucknow62 Agra61 Cuttack59 Cochin58 Patna50 Nagpur41 Jodhpur40 Allahabad37 Telangana34 Dehradun28 Karnataka25 Jabalpur10 SC5 Kerala5 Panaji4 Orissa4 Varanasi4 Ranchi2 Gauhati2 Uttarakhand1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1042 Section 143(3)41 Section 14736 Addition to Income33 Section 153A31 Section 153D27 Section 14823 Disallowance19 Section 14A

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

18

Section 142(1)14

Charitable Trust14

23. That in view of the above, it is therefore submitted that: i. the issue of the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is bad and legally untenable as the conditions provided in section 147 and 148 and as has been judicially interpreted have not been satisfied. ii. the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is lack of/in

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 47/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

u/s 147 of the I.T Act ,1961" 17. A perusal of the recorded reasons shows that nowhere it records any fresh tangible information, which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment under section 143(3) on 30.12.2009 for the assessment year 2007-08 and on 29.12.2010 for the assessment year 2008-09 and before recording

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 73/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

u/s 147 of the I.T Act ,1961" 17. A perusal of the recorded reasons shows that nowhere it records any fresh tangible information, which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment under section 143(3) on 30.12.2009 for the assessment year 2007-08 and on 29.12.2010 for the assessment year 2008-09 and before recording

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/CTK/2019[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 267/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 262/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR

23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 12. Aggrieved

M/S BERHAMPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. ITO, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/CTK/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

u/s 143(3) of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) 23. Replying

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

23-5-1997 and the assessment was, in fact, .finalized by the Assessing Officer on 27-5-1997 as borne out by the records. The fact that the first copy of the assessment order sent to the assessee on 30-5-1997 along with signed valid notice of demand issued under section 156 did not contain the signature

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

23-5-1997 and the assessment was, in fact, .finalized by the Assessing Officer on 27-5-1997 as borne out by the records. The fact that the first copy of the assessment order sent to the assessee on 30-5-1997 along with signed valid notice of demand issued under section 156 did not contain the signature