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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi288Mumbai228Jaipur94Ahmedabad75Chennai71Kolkata65Hyderabad61Bangalore60Cochin36Indore30Chandigarh30Surat21Pune20Raipur19Nagpur19Patna18Cuttack18Amritsar17Lucknow12Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam9Agra7Karnataka5Jabalpur3Rajkot3Ranchi3Telangana3Guwahati2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)7Section 2606Section 1476Section 39(1)3Section 260A3Reassessment3Addition to Income3Section 522Section 392Section 72

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

reassessment to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, notice under Section 143(2) has to be issued within the prescribed limit. It was further held that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated in law. However, the revenue was granted the liberty to take appropriate curative steps

2
Penalty2

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

ITA/11/2021HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 36(1)Section 39(1)Section 66(1)Section 70

Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act'] for the tax- period between April 2013 and March 2014. The appellant has failed in the reassessment proceedings on two issues viz., [i] the disallowance of Input Tax Credit [ITC] of Rs.36,600/- claimed by the appellant on the purchase from

SRI SAIDEEPA JEWELLARY WORKS vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(AUDIT)-2

WP/23858/2013HC Karnataka15 Jul 2013

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 35Section 36Section 38Section 39Section 39(1)Section 52Section 72

275 Annexures ‘A’ to ‘E’ for the periods 2005-06 to 2009-10, calling upon the petitioner to produce the books of account and documents indicated therein in exercise of jurisdiction under sub- section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. Petitioner did not respond to the notices by furnishing documents. 4 W.Ps.23858-862 & 31180-191/2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” 49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S QUANTECH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD

ITA/439/2018HC Karnataka04 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 268

275 ITR 595 in the following manner:- “A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or 12 omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding