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 “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,749Delhi2,312Chennai1,419Kolkata834Bangalore706Ahmedabad472Jaipur373Surat337Indore266Pune252Hyderabad240Chandigarh195Rajkot184Raipur166Cochin122Visakhapatnam92Lucknow81Amritsar75Nagpur73Karnataka69Guwahati60Cuttack51Calcutta46Agra46Allahabad34Patna34Jodhpur31Telangana24Dehradun20Ranchi20Panaji13SC13Jabalpur8Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Varanasi4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 407Section 2636Section 194C3Section 194H3Section 69C3Section 260A2Section 112Reopening of Assessment2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

ITA/180/2019HC Kerala11 Nov 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)Section 260ASection 263

reopen the order of assessment was exercised in respect of corpus donation received, which was not subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the I.T.Act, the period of limitation provided u/s 263(2) of the I.T.Act would begin to run from the date of intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act and not from the date

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/70/2017HC Kerala06 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 260ASection 40Section 69C

reopening of assessment were initiated and the assessee was called upon to produce the balance sheet and the profit and loss account for the assessment year 2007-08. Assessee replied that the accounts were misplaced. 2. Noticing that assessee had submitted audited accounts for different assessment years with the State Bank of India, after collecting the said audited accounts from

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/76/2018HC Kerala11 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed and added to the total income returned, treating it as income earned by the assessee which was not disclosed to ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -19- the Department. 30.2 On appeal the CIT(A) observed that an income cannot be based on mere presumption that if the assessee owns some agricultural land, the income from agricultural operation

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/53/2018HC Kerala11 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed and added to the total income returned, treating it as income earned by the assessee which was not disclosed to ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -19- the Department. 30.2 On appeal the CIT(A) observed that an income cannot be based on mere presumption that if the assessee owns some agricultural land, the income from agricultural operation