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.

26 results for “reassessment”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai225Delhi189Bangalore82Chennai59Jaipur58Amritsar44Kolkata38Cochin34Ahmedabad33Surat26Hyderabad26Pune19Patna16Chandigarh15Indore12Telangana10Raipur8Lucknow8Rajkot8SC6Nagpur6Karnataka4Guwahati4Visakhapatnam3Cuttack3Agra2Orissa1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14826Section 143(3)25Section 244A24Section 14718Section 15418Addition to Income17Section 13216Section 153A16Deduction9Section 10(38)

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8
Long Term Capital Gains8
Reopening of Assessment7

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 27/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

SYED GULAM MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 69

273 (Bom.) iii) The department respectfully submits that, it is fact that, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble DRP against the additions made by the AO. iv. The department prays to draw attention of the Hon'ble Bench to the provisions contained in Section 144C(13) of the I.T.Act .The usage of the phrase "notwithstanding anything contrary

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi

M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1460/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED,, TIRUPATHI

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

ITA 1533/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 42/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

273/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.8,94,76,600/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others on 02.05.2018. As part of the search operations, the case of the assessee

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

273/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.8,94,76,600/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others on 02.05.2018. As part of the search operations, the case of the assessee

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

273/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.8,94,76,600/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others on 02.05.2018. As part of the search operations, the case of the assessee

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

273/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.8,94,76,600/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others on 02.05.2018. As part of the search operations, the case of the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENT & MINERAL INDUSTRIS LIMITED , NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1963/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

273 [Bom) 4. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana which is jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Rahaman Saheb (B.A.R) Vs ITO [1975] 100 ITR 541 wherein it was held that: "Thus, on a careful reading of Explanation Z to subsection (3) of section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1039/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

273 [Bom) 4. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana which is jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Rahaman Saheb (B.A.R) Vs ITO [1975] 100 ITR 541 wherein it was held that: "Thus, on a careful reading of Explanation Z to subsection (3) of section

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1846/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1844/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1845/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1281/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri NarayanamurthyFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

reassessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to furnish details of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation from AY 1997-98 to 2003-04. After submitting the details, which were extracted by the CIT(A) at page 2 of his order, the assessee submitted that there is brought forward business loss of Rs. 16,61,40,1321/- and unabsorbed

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1040/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri NarayanamurthyFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

reassessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to furnish details of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation from AY 1997-98 to 2003-04. After submitting the details, which were extracted by the CIT(A) at page 2 of his order, the assessee submitted that there is brought forward business loss of Rs. 16,61,40,1321/- and unabsorbed