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 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore25Cochin18Mumbai12Surat8Jaipur5Chennai5Indore5Jabalpur3Ahmedabad2Amritsar2Hyderabad2Kolkata1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 269S7Section 271D4Section 271(1)(b)3Penalty2

HARI KRISHNA LEELA PRASAD PALADUGU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 798/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, and in the absence of any assessment proceedings, the question of initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act does not arise. Since there was no satisfaction recorded by the A.O. as required under the law, the consequent order passed by the A.O. imposing penalty under Section 271D

A Z DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the Act”). During the course of the proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22/12/2021, 17/01/2022 and 17/02/2022 to the assessee, to which the assessee could not respond. Consequently, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section