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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234B(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi671Mumbai606Bangalore293Ahmedabad110Jaipur87Hyderabad81Chennai77Kolkata69Pune49Rajkot26Agra26Indore24Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Lucknow18Chandigarh18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack7Karnataka7Ranchi7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Raipur3SC3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 478Section 115J7Section 2605Section 244A5Section 1473Section 260A2Section 802Transfer Pricing2Addition to Income

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/20040/2019HC Karnataka25 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254Section 92C

3) of section 153, & (ii) giving effect to appellate orders other than those covered by fresh assessment orders in terms of sub-section (5) of section 153; the 2016 Act amended section 244A by introducing sub-section (1A) 7 providing for the grant of additional interest in cases falling u/s 153(5). (b) The orders of the kind made

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2
Reopening of Assessment2
WP/30388/2015
HC Karnataka
10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “The assessee company has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.26,61,99,014/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) on 18.04.2011 determining total income at Rs.25,59,90,979/-. Subsequently it is noticed that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

ITA/884/2007HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 47Section 47A

234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

COP/60/2015HC Karnataka21 Aug 2015

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

Section 260Section 47Section 47A

234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

ITA/1100/2006HC Karnataka29 Jan 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 115JSection 148Section 260ASection 80

reassessing the income for the assessment year 2002-03 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and tax liability had been determined as per the amendment to Section 115JB. 5 7. For the subsequent two assessment years, the assessee being fully aware of the provisions of this Section and having filed returns, they had been assessed

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/637/2016HC Karnataka05 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 260Section 53A

234B and 234C of the Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstance of the case." 3. The brief facts are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005–06. In the said return, the assessee did not disclose the capital gains arising from the transfer of an asset pursuant

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/16692/2022HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 281BSection 281ESection 92C

234B and Penalty, as per provisions of the Income Tax act which will increase the likely tax dues of the assesses over and above the amount estimated above. 7. As per information received from the investigation wing, the assesses is maintaining fixed - 14 - deposits of Rs. 3700 crores. The details of the same is as under: Sl.No. BANK Name Account