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.

8 results for “reassessment”+ Section 145(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai590Delhi524Jaipur217Ahmedabad150Chennai130Bangalore127Chandigarh100Raipur84Kolkata84Rajkot56Surat51Pune49Agra46Hyderabad40Cuttack32Cochin32Lucknow32Telangana29Indore22Nagpur20Jodhpur19Allahabad19Amritsar18Patna12Guwahati11Dehradun10Visakhapatnam8SC7Orissa3Calcutta2Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati1Ranchi1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)28Section 14827Section 14715Depreciation6Reopening of Assessment6Section 142(1)5Section 325Section 148A4Addition to Income

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 316/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 263

145 of\nthe Act. It was submitted that there is slight variation in the measurement of\nvalue of loss as per ICDS disclosures and the assessee has worked out the same\nat Rs.14,14,19,625/-. After verification of the assessee's above submissions, the\nLd.Pr.CIT found the contentions of the assessee as not acceptable for the reason\nthat hedging

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

3
Section 2632
ITA 10/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Visakhapatnam
03 May 2019
AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blethe Acit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Guntur. D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 47/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 10/Viz/2019) (Asst. Year : 2006-07) M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(1), D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji Guntur. House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 03/05/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur, Dated 29/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 Ita No.10 /Viz/2019 & C.O.No. 47/Viz/2019 (M/S. Lakshmi Constrcutions)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

145(3) and estimated the net profit at 8%. 2. However, the learned Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 and the reasons, as mentioned in the assessment order, are that 'the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as interest on FDR, commission on sub- contract and VAT tax refund were not considered while finalizing the scrutiny assessment u/s143(3

NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 271/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3 N. Veerabrahmam 2. The notice dt.04.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention of the provisions of S.151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid. 3. The notice dt.04.04.2022 issued

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai