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.

2 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,654Mumbai3,593Chennai947Bangalore910Kolkata818Ahmedabad703Jaipur510Hyderabad478Pune355Chandigarh290Surat266Raipur258Indore220Rajkot217Amritsar164Visakhapatnam139Patna109Cochin101Lucknow98Nagpur96Guwahati89Cuttack69Agra66Dehradun51Jodhpur50Allahabad43Telangana41Karnataka38Panaji21Jabalpur15Ranchi13Calcutta12Varanasi9Orissa7Kerala6SC6Gauhati3Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 260A2Section 1482Section 12A2Exemption2Addition to Income2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN VILLAGE

Accordingly the same are dismissed alongwith pending

ITA/29/2019HC Himachal Pradesh22 Aug 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with
Section 12ASection 148Section 260A

147 of the Act was resorted to since the Assessing Officer believed that funds amounting to Rs.20,66,74,263/- shown in the balance sheet of the assessee as earmarked funds under the head "Fund Pending Utilization" ought to have been included in the income of the assessee, and there was a shortfall in utilization of income to the extent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN VILLAGE

Accordingly the same are dismissed alongwith pending

ITA/31/2019HC Himachal Pradesh22 Aug 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with
Section 12ASection 148Section 260A

147 of the Act was resorted to since the Assessing Officer believed that funds amounting to Rs.20,66,74,263/- shown in the balance sheet of the assessee as earmarked funds under the head "Fund Pending Utilization" ought to have been included in the income of the assessee, and there was a shortfall in utilization of income to the extent