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”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,343Delhi1,263Chennai459Jaipur432Ahmedabad353Kolkata320Bangalore282Hyderabad212Chandigarh151Indore138Pune138Rajkot112Amritsar104Surat95Raipur75Nagpur73Visakhapatnam73Agra61Guwahati56Cochin52Lucknow41Jodhpur29Patna26Ranchi17Cuttack15Allahabad10Dehradun9Jabalpur5Varanasi5Telangana5Karnataka3SC3Calcutta2Orissa2Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1328Section 1587Section 686Section 2635Addition to Income5Section 260A2Section 2602Section 153A2Reassessment2Disallowance

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

ITTA/3/2000HC Telangana02 Jan 2012

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

For Appellant: - M/S Verma Roadways Through its Partner R.K.VermaFor Respondent: - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Section 132Section 158Section 260A

Unexplained investment in house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against aforesaid order of assessment which has been partly allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment. Both parties have filed respective appeals to the extent order of Tribunal is against them. 17. Tribunal has considered various issues of Assessee and returned findings, in brief, as under

2

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/599/2015HC Telangana30 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/547/2013HC Telangana01 Nov 2013
Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

ITTA/360/2011HC Telangana20 Aug 2013
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

unexplained sales or purchases made by the assessee. It was only on the basis of the statement of Shri Harmesh Arora before the excise authorities in which the Tribunal had noticed various contradictions and gaps. In the facts and circumstances, on the basis of the statement made by Shri Harmesh Arora alone before the excise authorities which did not find

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

unexplained credits and interest thereon for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.” 4.4 He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held as under:- “21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia