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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi589Mumbai537Bangalore191Chennai141Ahmedabad132Jaipur125Chandigarh79Kolkata75Hyderabad56Indore55Raipur47Telangana37Agra31Surat30Guwahati29Pune27Rajkot27Amritsar25Lucknow25Nagpur20Allahabad20Visakhapatnam18Cuttack18Cochin14Jodhpur14Ranchi13SC9Dehradun8Patna5Orissa4Calcutta4Karnataka3Rajasthan2Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 10A5Section 104Section 10(1)2Section 2602

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT LTD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

ITA/65/2014HC Karnataka14 Aug 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 260

125/- towards expenditure incurred in foreign currency for rendering technical services outside India ought to have been considered as not profits derived by an undertaking from export of articles or things or 15 computer software under Section 10A(1) of the Act and that the same should be totally excluded from the computation of deduction under Section

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

WP/56279/2015HC Karnataka25 May 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

Section 108A

125 Acres 29.50 guntas. The petitioner has set up a Special Economic Zone for information Technology and/or Information Technology Enabled Services in the allotted land. The petitioner had obtained necessary approvals, permissions, NOC’s and Sanctions from the concerned authorities, and developed the entire Schedule properties into an Information Technology Park and other Infrastructure Industry, with several wings/blocks

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/17813/2021HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 10Section 10(1)

125. In our opinion, the additions made by the AO on the basis of Board resolutions of RAL is not justified for the following reasons: - a. The assessing officer has not discharged the burden cast on him to prove that the appellant is the shareholder/beneficial owner of RAL. b. The assessing officer has merely acted on a suspicion