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.

5 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi555Mumbai318Bangalore165Jaipur150Chennai129Hyderabad107Ahmedabad82Chandigarh64Pune48Kolkata45Raipur43Nagpur41Rajkot36Allahabad31Surat27Telangana23Amritsar21Lucknow20Indore16Guwahati12Cuttack10Karnataka9Visakhapatnam5Cochin5Patna5Orissa2SC2Jodhpur2Agra2Ranchi1Uttarakhand1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1478Section 1488Section 142(1)4Section 693Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 1442Survey u/s 133A2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

150/- vide Document No. 2683/2013, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31/03/2021 was issued to the assessee. CO. No. 08/Viz/2024 ITO vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the source of the investment made towards the purchase

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

150 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 9. Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal sought for admission of additional grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as below: “1. Assessment in the case of the appellant was completed u/s 147

KODALI SURESH BABU,LABBIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

150/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 69 of the Act towards alleged unexplained investment in purchases of property. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not accepting the amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- paid by the father of the appellant as a source for the investment in purchase of property. Any other grounds may be urged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

ITA 221/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 137/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed