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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi435Mumbai318Bangalore249Kolkata145Jaipur96Ahmedabad70Hyderabad58Rajkot47Chennai45Chandigarh38Surat37Raipur31Indore30Amritsar30Cochin26Ranchi25Pune23Allahabad22Karnataka16Cuttack14Lucknow12Patna11Visakhapatnam9Agra9Telangana6Nagpur4Guwahati2Jabalpur1Calcutta1Dehradun1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jodhpur1Orissa1SC1

Key Topics

Section 14818Section 153A15Section 3514Section 143(3)9Addition to Income8Section 142(1)5Section 1325Section 143(2)5Undisclosed Income

SRI . AEMALA VENKATESWARA RAO,,GUNTUR vs. THE ITO,, GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2007-08) Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Asst.In The Name Of Ward-2(1) Aemala Nirmala Devi Guntur L/R Of Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao 5-93-39; 6/13 Brodipet Guntur [Pan :Aespa0834Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .03.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the 5 I.T.A. No.227/Viz/2017 Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao, Guntur purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 1444
Reassessment3

M.RAGHURAMA RAJU L/R OF (LATE) M RADHA MOHAN RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.529/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) M Raghurama Raju Vs Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) M.Radha Mohan Raju Ward-2(2) Flat No.306, Charan Castle Visakhapatnam Sairam Colony Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agxpm9324L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: Delay: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Representative Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In I.T.A.No.0111/2015-16/Ito,W-2(2),Vsp/2019-20 Dated 14.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2007-08 With A Delay Of 3 Days.

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt U Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 50C

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI BHAVANSI YELLA RAO, PIDUGURALLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 351/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 265/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 268/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 266/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 267/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

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

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

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

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field