Prabhakar\nDamodar Gawande v. ITO

200 TTJ 1017Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19761 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(2a)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 148(2)order under section 148a(d)income escaping assessmentsection 148a(b)section 148a(d)tangible materialsection 148asection 36(1)(va)section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing Prabhakar\nDamodar Gawande v. ITO

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1444/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

….com 445) (PBP 52). iv. Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Suraksha DB Realty vs. DCIT (ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 dated 08.09.2022) (PBP 60). v. Order of the Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande vs. ITO (200 TTJ 1017) (PBP 88).” 7. The ld. DR heavily relied on his written submissions which is extracted below “2. The appellant has primarily contested the validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), arguing that once the primary issue for reopening has been dropped by CIT(A), the reassessment proceedings automatic…

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1443/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

….com 445) (PBP 52). iv. Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Suraksha DB Realty vs. DCIT (ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 dated 08.09.2022) (PBP 60). v. Order of the Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande vs. ITO (200 TTJ 1017) (PBP 88).” 7. The ld. DR heavily relied on his written submissions which is extracted below “2. The appellant has primarily contested the validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), arguing that once the primary issue for reopening has been dropped by CIT(A), the reassessment proceedings automatic…

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1442/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 250Section 40

….com 445) (PBP 52). iv. Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Suraksha DB Realty vs. DCIT (ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 dated 08.09.2022) (PBP 60). v. Order of the Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande vs. ITO (200 TTJ 1017) (PBP 88).” 7. The ld. DR heavily relied on his written submissions which is extracted below – “2. The appellant has primarily contested the validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), arguing that once the primary issue for reopening has been dropped by CIT(A), the reassessment proceedings automa…

Sureaksha DB Realty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri OP Sharma, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69CSection 80

…deleted by the tribunal, even then such other additions/disallowances which were not part of reasons of the reopening of the assessment, can be upheld or not. 033. This issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawade V ITO (200 TTJ 1017) dated 9/05/2019. The coordinate bench in that case followed the decision Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Jet Airways Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and CIT versus Cheil communications India private limited (2013) 354 ITR 549 (del). In that particular case the learned assessing officer initia…

Prabhakar\nDamodar Gawande v. ITO (200 TTJ 1017) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax