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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 197clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi322Mumbai266Chennai121Bangalore110Jaipur93Chandigarh51Surat50Hyderabad49Kolkata46Ahmedabad44Raipur43Pune29Amritsar14Cochin14Indore14Rajkot13Lucknow13Visakhapatnam10Agra5Calcutta5Karnataka4Nagpur4Telangana4Cuttack4SC2Guwahati1Patna1Jodhpur1Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 3514Section 4012Section 26310Reassessment8Deduction7Disallowance7Section 1485Section 194C5Addition to Income

THOTA VENKATESWARA RAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 187(3)Section 69A

section 187(3) and also 197(b) of the Income Declaration Scheme in 2016 (IDS) and concluded that tax has not been paid as per IDS 2016 and the undisclosed income shall be chargeable to tax under the Act in the previous year in which such declaration is made. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted that

5
TDS5
Revision u/s 2635

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. PARUCHURU SATISH KUMAR(HUF), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

197 are extracted below for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court “If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, or arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. PARUCHURU SATISH KUMAR(HUF), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 699/VIZ/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

197 are extracted below for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court “If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, or arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 201/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 203/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 202/VIZ/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 205/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 206/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

197/- claimed U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that appellant was not carrying on research activity at the address mentioned in Form 3CL but incurred at Kalunga, Rourkela. Such disallowance has resulted in additional tax liability and interest thereon. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO which was challenged

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

197/- claimed U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that appellant was not carrying on research activity at the address mentioned in Form 3CL but incurred at Kalunga, Rourkela. Such disallowance has resulted in additional tax liability and interest thereon. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO which was challenged