Search: reassessment

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi14 Mumbai7 Hyderabad6 Chennai3 Chandigarh2 Visakhapatnam2 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14717 Section 14810 Section 69A7 Section 148A7 Cash Deposit6 Addition to Income6 Unexplained Money5 Section 1443 Section 14B2

MANIKUMARI SAMANCHI,ZAHEERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1345/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14BSection 69A

44B of the Act, dated 09/03/2024 based on the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 22/04/2023 and Notice issued U/s 148 of the Act, dated 22/04/2023 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai), i.e., the “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO). 11. In our view, the issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., the validity

MANIKUMARI SAMANCHI,ZAHEERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

MANIKUMARI SAMANCHI,ZAHEERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

MANIKUMARI SAMANCHI,ZAHEERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

MANIKUMARI SAMANCHI,ZAHEERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

THILAK BABU BOPPANA,CHITTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

PALLAPU SRINIVASARAO (HUF),ALMASGUDA vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

KRISHNAVENI KOKKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

DILEEP KUMAR SAKAMURI CHENCHU VENKATA,SRIKALAHASTI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI