BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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”+ Section 259clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi211Mumbai149Chennai132Jaipur113Bangalore70Kolkata41Nagpur31Pune28Chandigarh27Ahmedabad20Jodhpur16Patna16Lucknow14Panaji13Cochin13Hyderabad13Guwahati9Rajkot7Indore6Raipur5Amritsar5Jabalpur4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Surat3Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 80P5Section 54F4Section 1473Section 1483Section 143(2)3Section 1542Deduction2Reopening of Assessment2

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not quashing the assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued within the time stipulated under the Act. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no.2

Addition to Income2

GMEDAPADU PACS,EAST GODAVARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 573/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Gmedapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 10/02/2021 For Ay 2018-19. The Assessee Society Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Ao On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80P

259 ITR 19 (SC). It is contended that the AO disallowed the deduction under section 80P in the computation sheet without communicating any reasons for such disallowance and without affording an opportunity to the assessee to file objections. The appellant argued that such action violates the principles of natural justice and the binding precedent of the Apex Court. I have

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

reassessment proceedings for non-disposal of the objections is justifiable and to be sustained. 9. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] referring to the letter dated 07.03.2018 by the Ld. AO and argued that Ld. AO has rightly disposed of the objections raised by the assessee vide letter dated 27.02.2018. Ld. DR further submitted that this disposal