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.

10 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 91clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi688Mumbai640Bangalore280Chennai186Ahmedabad172Jaipur135Hyderabad107Kolkata82Raipur77Indore56Chandigarh55Rajkot52Pune36Surat34Patna29Lucknow28Guwahati23Telangana23Jodhpur19Nagpur19Cochin16Amritsar12Agra10Karnataka10Cuttack9Visakhapatnam9Panaji4Allahabad4Dehradun3Varanasi3Orissa2Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26026Section 260A5Section 1475Section 1485Section 153C4Section 143(3)4Section 1444Reassessment3Deduction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment of income of Rs.48,73,08,092/- for the assessment year 2011-12 the assessing officer has made an assessment of business income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018
3
Section 1322
Addition to Income2
HC Karnataka
31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

Section 153C against the assessee for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 and a notice under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2011- 2012. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid search and seizure which was carried under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 is concerned, it is relevant to refer to Section 153C

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2014HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/403/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

91,14,354/- paid during the previous years. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner in granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the same was confirmed. 24. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that the Appellate Authorities were not right in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crore cannot be disallowed

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KOTARKI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

WA/842/2018HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ESTEEM CLASSIC

ITA/842/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

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

147 deals with income escaping assessment. Chapter XXI deals with penalties imposable. 37 Section 271 deals with failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc., It reads as under:- “271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

ITA/107/2025HC Karnataka12 Sept 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260A

91,000/- on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 account of APA. Similarly, the Assessee had along with his return, made TP adjustments of ₹48,36,10,916/- for AY 2016-17 on account of APA. 6. The voluntary TP adjustment pursuant to the APA, included

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KWALITY BISCUITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/155/2023HC Karnataka30 Sept 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 147Section 260

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, which decision is against the Explanation 1 to the provision of Section 147 of the Income tax Act, as the reason for reopening emanates from the books of accounts of the assessee from which the material evidence of escapement of LTCG has been discovered by the Assessing Officer with due diligence required