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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 233clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi379Mumbai230Bangalore72Chennai47Chandigarh43Jaipur42Raipur34Kolkata32Ahmedabad26Lucknow23Patna22Indore16Visakhapatnam13Cochin13Pune13Nagpur11Surat11Cuttack9Amritsar7Dehradun7Telangana5Guwahati5Rajkot4Panaji3Allahabad3Karnataka2Agra2Ranchi2Orissa1Hyderabad1SC1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)36Section 153A24Section 14820Section 14710Section 1328Unexplained Cash Credit8Disallowance8Addition to Income8Undisclosed Income

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 170/VIZ/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

8
Section 142(1)5
Section 325
Depreciation5

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 172/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

MYNENI VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 130/VIZ/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 168/VIZ/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 169/VIZ/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 171/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 173/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 174/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

233 2005-06 16,30,835 2006-07 26,69,408 2007-08 41,53,703 2008-09 2,04,25,430 6.1. The Ld.AR argued that in the above assessments for the A.Y.2004-05 to 2008-09, the additions were made either from the information already available in the assessment record or by assumptions and presumptions. The Ld.AR further argued

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power