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.

6 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi48Jaipur26Mumbai23Chennai22Bangalore21Hyderabad19Ahmedabad10Pune10Indore10Kolkata9Raipur8Patna8Agra6Chandigarh6Visakhapatnam5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Karnataka2Surat2Amritsar1Allahabad1Nagpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 26328Section 14710Section 143(3)9Section 1488Reassessment5Section 54F2Revision u/s 2632Survey u/s 133A2Addition to Income2

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 336/AGR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 129Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 54BSection 54F

54F and 54B taking the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act not applying on it. 5. Because in any view, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the interest charged u/s 234A, 234B & 234C, which is wrong and illegal.” 2. The following additional ground has also been raised: “7. Because in any view, the Assessment framed u/s

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor

SHRI RISHI KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. CIT CIRCLE 1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 54F

54F without properly appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case. 3. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts in making an addition of Rs.86,432/- on account of alleged FDR interest without properly appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case.” 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee modified Ground No.1, vide application dated 12.12.2017, which is reproduced