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 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi543Mumbai480Ahmedabad96Kolkata76Bangalore76Jaipur65Indore62Chennai58Chandigarh42Surat39Lucknow28Cuttack27Hyderabad27Allahabad26Raipur25Rajkot25Nagpur23Pune21Patna21Panaji21Agra18Ranchi14Cochin13Dehradun13Guwahati12Amritsar8Telangana7Karnataka6Jodhpur4Varanasi4Kerala3SC3Uttarakhand1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)8Business Income6Deduction6Section 260A4Section 464Exemption4Section 1483Section 803Section 80I2Section 43B

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

ITTA/102/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should

2
Section 143(2)2

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

ITTA/422/2006HC Telangana27 Aug 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

253 ITR396 (Mad.) and in the case of CIT vs Menon Impex (P) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 403 (Mad.) and by Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 278 (Ker) that the used of the term "derived from" in the relevant provision of the Act indicates the restricted meaning to cover only

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri. Sudheer Reddy

ITTA/382/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central KanpurFor Respondent: - M/S Gopi Apartments
Section 132(1)Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 153Section 153CSection 226Section 253Section 253(1)(b)Section 260

253(1)(b) of the Act? 6. The Hon'ble ITAT has thus, with due respect, exceeded its jurisdiction and assumed writ jurisdiction vested in the Hon'ble High Court under section 226 of the Income Tax Act. Hon'ble ITAT being a creature of the Income Tax Act is bound by the powers and limitation imposed by the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/715/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/243/2007HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/718/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/711/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities