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 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,051Mumbai1,011Bangalore408Chennai350Ahmedabad252Jaipur206Kolkata155Hyderabad123Chandigarh116Raipur90Pune87Indore69Rajkot54Surat49Guwahati41Lucknow40Telangana29Patna28Cuttack27Visakhapatnam25Nagpur23Amritsar22Jodhpur20Karnataka14Allahabad14Cochin6Dehradun5Agra5Orissa4SC2Ranchi2Varanasi2Jabalpur1Uttarakhand1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 15113Section 1478Section 1485Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 69A3Reassessment3Section 153A2Section 145

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 386/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M. M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151

47,29,661/-, whereas the amount mentioned in the order passed\nunder Section 148A(d) of the Act totals to Rs.12431,99,24,486/-. In the said\norder, there is not even an explanation as to how the amount has changed or\nhas gone down.\nIn the affidavit in reply, it is stated that in the notice the transaction value

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2
Section 142A2
Reopening of Assessment2
Bogus Purchases2
ITA 450/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

u/s 148A(d) as a fit 148A(d) AND/OR issuance of case. notice under section 148 of the Name: RAJAT Income-tax Act, 1961? BANSAL Designation: PCCIT, DELHI Date: 20/03/2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

47,710/-. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,90,000/- in his bank account maintained with PNB, Baruasagar, Jhansi. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019, which stood un-responded on behalf

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

ITA 117/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

47,111\n10,42,68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nPurchases\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

ITA 157/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

47,111\n10,42,68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger