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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 142Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh44Delhi41Jaipur22Chennai17Agra15Mumbai12Bangalore11Pune10Raipur8Nagpur7Surat7Lucknow6Hyderabad6Ahmedabad5Patna4Indore4Kolkata3Karnataka2Cuttack2SC1Telangana1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14A7Section 56(2)(viia)4Condonation of Delay4Section 43B3Section 143(2)3Section 115J2Section 472Disallowance2Addition to Income2

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 19/11/2008. . The following two properties were referred to DVO: i) Factory building at Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttaranchal ii) Factory building at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the regular assessment was completed before the receipt of the valuation report on 31/12/2008. However, the assessee filed

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Hyderabad
27 Mar 2019
AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 19/11/2008. . The following two properties were referred to DVO: i) Factory building at Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttaranchal ii) Factory building at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the regular assessment was completed before the receipt of the valuation report on 31/12/2008. However, the assessee filed

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 19/11/2008. . The following two properties were referred to DVO: i) Factory building at Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttaranchal ii) Factory building at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the regular assessment was completed before the receipt of the valuation report on 31/12/2008. However, the assessee filed

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 19/11/2008. . The following two properties were referred to DVO: i) Factory building at Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttaranchal ii) Factory building at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the regular assessment was completed before the receipt of the valuation report on 31/12/2008. However, the assessee filed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

FLYTECH AVIATION LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1712/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 69B

section 115JB of the Act at Rs.55,33,668/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. While, the assessment proceedings were pending, the AO had received certain information from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short “DRI”) Chennai, consequent on search conducted by the DRI, assessee