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.

929 results for “reassessment”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,522Mumbai4,905Chennai1,536Bangalore1,362Kolkata1,147Jaipur978Ahmedabad929Hyderabad767Pune668Raipur485Chandigarh460Surat378Indore352Visakhapatnam310Amritsar305Rajkot283Cochin261Cuttack226Karnataka176Nagpur154Patna148Agra143Guwahati133Lucknow122Dehradun101Ranchi93Telangana88Jodhpur65Allahabad60SC41Panaji36Calcutta24Jabalpur19Orissa12Kerala11Rajasthan11Varanasi9Punjab & Haryana6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Himachal Pradesh2Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 147131Section 14891Addition to Income73Section 143(3)56Reassessment49Section 26339Section 6836Reopening of Assessment35Section 14A32

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

reassessment, as the case maybe, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. Section 153 of the Act does not permit passing any order after the expiry of 33 months from the end of the assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 in the present case. Therefore, the time limit for completing assessment

Showing 1–20 of 929 · Page 1 of 47

...
Section 69A25
Penalty25
Section 271(1)(c)24

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

10,960.00 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

10,960.00 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

10. It is the case of the assessee that the details in respect of the issue involved in the notice under Section 147 of the Act has already been furnished during the assessment proceeding. In this regard, the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee in response to the notice under Section

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1115/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

10. It is the case of the assessee that the details in respect of the issue involved in the notice under Section 147 of the Act has already been furnished during the assessment proceeding. In this regard, the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee in response to the notice under Section

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Smt Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

reassessment proceedings were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 13th December 2017 after making any addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. It is necessary to clarify at this juncture that there was a mismatch in the amount recorded in the reasons for reopening

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SPECIFIC CERAMIC LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 121/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T., M/S. Specific Ceramics Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Vs. C 601-602, Part-C, Ahmedabad. Tower Indraprasth Complex, Thaltej Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

reassessment as the case may be under section 147 of the Act. But the AO has not done so. Accordingly, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. 9.8 We further note that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act deals with the situation where notice is not served

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

10 admitted tax paid in pursuance of section 140A(1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards the regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. It is pertinent to note that section 140A(1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that an assessment made under

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment as the case may be under section 147 of the Act. But the AO has not done so. Accordingly, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. 9.8 We further note that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act deals with the situation where notice is not served

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment as the case may be under section 147 of the Act. But the AO has not done so. Accordingly, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. 9.8 We further note that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act deals with the situation where notice is not served

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 40(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

reassessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, in spite of affording opportunities of hearing, the appellant failed to file any explanation / justification in the matter. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “Section 40A(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 which is further evidenced by amendment bythe Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 that inserted 4th proviso to section 153A read with explanation 1, the expression "relevant assessment year" that means an assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 686/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 68

10. Thus in view of the above we conclude that the AO was under the obligation to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act for making the assessment or reassessment as the case may be. But the AO has not done so. Accordingly, the order framed under section 143(3

KAMLA CRAFT PACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 810/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.810/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Kamla Craft Pack Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, Nr. Lotus Flats, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-38001. Pan: Aaack7985K

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 68

10. Thus in view of the above we conclude that the AO was under the obligation to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act for making the assessment or reassessment as the case may be. But the AO has not done so. Accordingly, the order framed under section 143(3

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

ITA 1330/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 148Section 151

10 Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings cannot be added. In other words, the income which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer as escaped income during the reassessment proceedings can only be added if addition on an issue for which assessment was reopened is being made. For buttressing his proposition and explaining the position of law, he relied

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

ITA 1331/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 148Section 151

10 Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings cannot be added. In other words, the income which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer as escaped income during the reassessment proceedings can only be added if addition on an issue for which assessment was reopened is being made. For buttressing his proposition and explaining the position of law, he relied

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 958/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

10(23C) referred institutions) [Section 11(3)(d)]. Thus, it can be seen that no similar charge was created for accumulation which was not utilised in the period specified in Section 11(2) or further period provided u/s.11(3)(c) of the Act. In other words, no charging provision was created to tax the accumulation which was found

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 957/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

10(23C) referred institutions) [Section 11(3)(d)]. Thus, it can be seen that no similar charge was created for accumulation which was not utilised in the period specified in Section 11(2) or further period provided u/s.11(3)(c) of the Act. In other words, no charging provision was created to tax the accumulation which was found

RASIKBHAI RAMDAS PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 98/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-2012 Rasikbhai Ramdas Patel, The Principal Commissioner Lal Vas, At. Thol, Vs. Of Income-Tax-3, Tal. Kadi, Ahmedabad Dist. Mehsana-382715. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jamesh Kurian, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

10. The learned AR before us has assailed the order passed by the learned PCIT, holding the assessment framed by the AO under the provisions of section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, on various counts as detailed below.  With respect the addition proposed under section 50C of the Act i. The land in dispute was actually

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. DIT, (INTL. TAXN.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2388-2389/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-2005 & 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., A.D.I.T(International Prahaladnagar Garden, Vs. Tax), 701 Parshwanath E Square, Ahmedabad. Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacj9592P

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 42

reassessment on the ground that Assessing Officer has omitted to enquire on deduction u/s. 42 when in-fact the reopening is based on change of opinion which is not permissible under she Income tax law. It is submitted it be so held now. 3. The learned CI1(A) has erred in holding oil well as part of the building within