BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi34Raipur17Ranchi15Chennai14Jaipur13Bangalore10Mumbai7Panaji5Pune4Hyderabad3Indore3Cochin3Ahmedabad3Kolkata3Guwahati2Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1Jodhpur1Lucknow1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 456Section 2(47)(v)5Section 1485Section 1474Section 139(1)4Section 270A3Capital Gains3

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MIKKILINENI NARENDRA KUMAR, SERILINGAMPALLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated for the A.Y. 2016-17 and a notice was issued on 30.03.2021. In response to this notice, assessee has not filed any return but submitted the information stating that he has not entered/executed any sale deed during the relevant A.Y. 2016-17 has only entered into a modified development Agreement cum general power

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

5A) was not applicable for the year and that, the assessee still had adequate time up to 31.03.2018 to file the return. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that payment of part of the tax before reopening does not cure the default nor prevent levy of penalty for under-reporting. He held that, the case fell squarely under Section 270A

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 45

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his ROI on 24.03.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,600/-. After going through the submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO contended that the transfer of property take place in the year of JDA and the assessee is liable for capital