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.

3 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai106Delhi66Bangalore45Chennai39Hyderabad20Kolkata17Jaipur15Lucknow11Karnataka6Cochin6Pune5Guwahati3Telangana3Visakhapatnam3Ranchi1Calcutta1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 10A5Section 1475Section 143(3)4Section 1484Section 13(1)(b)4Section 364Section 2602Section 12A2Reopening of Assessment

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

ITTA/65/2014HC Telangana26 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 260

u/s 10A. Consequent short levy of tax and surcharge works out to Rs.1,76,39,326/-. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Ay 2003-04”. 14 As per Section 147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

2
ITTA/575/2017
HC Telangana
03 Oct 2017

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

u/s 36(i)(iii) instead of Rs. 13.04 crore in the assessment order has resulted in escapement of income amount of Rs. 4.06 crore (13.04 crore less 8.98 crore). In view of the same I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 4.06 crore has escaped assessment for the AY 2010-11 and needs

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/163/2012HC Telangana26 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

u/s 12AA of the Act, hence its application is hereby rejected.” (3 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] 5. However, counsel for the respondent contended that the Commissioner itself in the order which came to be passed subsequently observed as stated hereinabove. 6. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT vs. Vijay Vargiya Vani Charitable Trust reported