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 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi521Mumbai421Bangalore139Jaipur115Chandigarh104Chennai98Indore52Kolkata44Ahmedabad43Guwahati42Cochin32Raipur28Hyderabad26Nagpur22Pune20Allahabad20Lucknow18Patna17Rajkot15Surat15Agra13Jodhpur12Cuttack9SC8Telangana8Karnataka5Amritsar5Orissa4Ranchi3Visakhapatnam2Dehradun2Varanasi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 244A5Section 124Addition to Income4Section 173(1)3Section 92C2Transfer Pricing2

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

36 order and accordingly, fresh demand, if any, is raised. There is no bar in the Act for raising the demand and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in this practice being followed by the revenue authorities. [Para 8] However, difficulties would arise only where some of the additions are confirmed and/or deleted and some issues are set aside for fresh

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

viii) Rajinder Nath vs. CIT – AIR 1979 SC 1933; (ix) M. CT.Muthuraman vs. ITO Madras – (1968) 69 ITR 432 (Mad.HC); (x) DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd., - (2013) 11 SCC 373; (xi) Gauri Shankar Choudhary vs. Addl.Commissioner of IT – (1998) 234 ITR 856 (Pat.); (xii) Krishak Bharati Co-operative Limited vs. State of Gujarat – C/SCA/3708/2012 dated 10.01.2023 (Gujarat

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA TONY

In the result, all the appeals which are filed by

ITA/163/2014HC Karnataka31 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 173(1)

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

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

36. Under Section 108-A read with Explanation of the Act, Tax has to be made on Unit Area Value. This Unit Area Value 55 means an average rate of expected returns from the property per sq. ft., per month determined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has got power under the said provision to determine what could be the unit

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

viii) Alternatively, it is submitted that the approval of the 3rd respondent is restricted only to royalty payments which constitute 20% of the attached deposits and accordingly, it is necessary to set aside the attachment order in relation to the remaining 80% of the subject fixed deposits. (ix) Since the provisional attachment order does not contain valid or sufficient reasons