← All Phrases

“first proviso to section 147”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147494 judgments

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 86/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
For Respondent: \nShri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

order dated 18.02.2015. In these facts and\ncircumstances, the contention of the assessee that the assessee's\ncase is saved by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act\ndeserves acceptance. Section 147 of the Act is the relevant\nprovision of law for assessing income escaping assessment. As\nnoted ... applying relevant law to the facts and\ncircumstances of the present case; it is obvious that the assessee\nis saved by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n(C.2.1) In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned\nappellate order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside

PIYUSH ASHOK MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee in the present appeal in allowed

ITA 9092/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 in terms of section 147 of the I.T.Act. Further, with reference to first proviso to section 147 of the I.T.Act, there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment

PIYUSH ASHOK MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee in the present appeal in allowed

ITA 9091/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 in terms of section 147 of the I.T.Act. Further, with reference to first proviso to section 147 of the I.T.Act, there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

have knowledge about section 14A. [Para 13] The assessee had accepted that 'material particular' referred to in the first proviso to section 147 not only refers to details in the return but also to explanations and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had not stated anything

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

have knowledge about section 14A. [Para 13] The assessee had accepted that 'material particular' referred to in the first proviso to section 147 not only refers to details in the return but also to explanations and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had not stated anything

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

have knowledge about section 14A. [Para 13] The assessee had accepted that 'material particular' referred to in the first proviso to section 147 not only refers to details in the return but also to explanations and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had not stated anything

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

have knowledge about section 14A. [Para 13] The assessee had accepted that 'material particular' referred to in the first proviso to section 147 not only refers to details in the return but also to explanations and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had not stated anything

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: \nMs. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts of the case in\nassuming jurisdiction and reopening its concluded assessment in\ncontravention of the mandate of the \"first proviso” to section 147 of the\nAct. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company in its return of\nincome had provided the complete details of depreciation of Rs.7.34\ncrores ... full and true disclose\nof all material facts necessary for framing of assessment, its case was\nas per the mandate of the \"first proviso” to section 147 of the Act rightly\nreopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant\n assessment year

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of Section 147. (iv) The provisions of the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied, inasmuch as the Appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration ... regard to the fact that the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year referred to in the first proviso to Section 147 had expired on 31th March, 2013, the Jurisdiction of the Ld AD to assess or reassess any Income chargeable to tax which

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of Section 147. (iv) The provisions of the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied, inasmuch as the Appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration ... regard to the fact that the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year referred to in the first proviso to Section 147 had expired on 31th March, 2013, the Jurisdiction of the Ld AD to assess or reassess any Income chargeable to tax which

TRIMURTI STEELS,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiatrimurti Steels, I.T.O., Plot No. N-3885, Golap Niwas, Ward- 2(1) Vs. Samantarapur, Bhubaneshwar-751002 Bhubaneshwar. Odisha. Pan No. Aahft 1240 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 184Section 40

failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are required for assessment. The First proviso to Section 147 clearly shows that for the purpose of reopening, if the reopening is done beyond four years and an assessment has already been done

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

present case, the reopening has been made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the first proviso to section 147 is attracted. In such circumstances, reopening is permissible only if there is failure on facts necessary for assessment. 35. No such failure has been demonstrated ... investment, dividend income and redemption details were part of the return and were furnished during scrutiny. Hence, the condition precedent under the first proviso to section 147 is not satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that the reopening suffers from the vice of change of opinion and is hit by the proviso

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Further, as the reopening in the instant matter was undisputedly initiated after four years from the end of relevant AY, therefore, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act come into play, so it is obligatory upon the ld. AO to comply with the said proviso and to demonstrate ... section 148 of the Act dated March 31, 2021 was issued beyond a period of four years, then, in view of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the said notice could have been issued only if there is a failure on part of the assessee to disclose

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Further, as the reopening in the instant matter was undisputedly initiated after four years from the end of relevant AY, therefore, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act come into play, so it is obligatory upon the ld. AO to comply with the said proviso and to demonstrate ... section 148 of the Act dated March 31, 2021 was issued beyond a period of four years, then, in view of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the said notice could have been issued only if there is a failure on part of the assessee to disclose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 337/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless ... issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 336/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless ... issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 334/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless ... issue has already been examined unlike in the cases where proceedings of income escaping assessments are contemplated in terms of erstwhile first proviso to section 147 of the Act which prohibits assessing officer from reopening assessment beyond four years if the case was already assessed under section 143(3) unless

VARDAAN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

ITA 834/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 834/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vardaan Infrastructures Private Limited, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), C/S Shankar Marbles, Ring Road 1, Ayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aadcv3823C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal and Shri Praveen Goyal, CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 28/03/2021 by the assessing officer is illegal and barred by limitation as per first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts at the time of original assessment. Therefore, the reopening is barred by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act and is void ab initio. Moreover, the reopening is also based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible ... facts necessary for assessment and the said notice dated 21.09.2020 is reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 6.1 We also find that the first proviso to section 147 of the Act clearly mandates that where an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act , no action

NAGPAL ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD -2 (5) , CHANDAUSI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 179/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

four years from the expiry of the\n assessment year in question and is clearly therefore,\ntime barred in terms of the first proviso to section 147\nof the Income-tax Act.\n4. The stand of the Revenue that in view of the\nvacant notifications issued by the Central Government

Showing 1–20 of 494 · Page 1 of 25

...