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.

57 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai252Kolkata72Jaipur69Delhi60Ahmedabad57Guwahati24Pune21Chandigarh20Surat18Bangalore18Rajkot15Chennai13Lucknow12Indore9Raipur8Patna6Visakhapatnam5Amritsar4Cuttack4Hyderabad3Ranchi2Jodhpur1Gauhati1Nagpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 147121Section 14882Addition to Income49Reassessment42Reopening of Assessment37Section 26335Penny Stock33Section 6831Section 10(38)

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 12/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening are incorrect

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

24
Section 143(3)22
Section 69A19
Section 25016

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 11/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening are incorrect

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 13/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening are incorrect

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 10/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening are incorrect

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

ITA 426/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

147 as valid\nwhen reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search\nconducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to\nappellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s\nITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024\nArcoy Industries (India) P. Ltd.\nAYs

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

For Appellant: Shri Bharat R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, as a transaction in the penny stock being not commensurate with the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer while finalizing the reassessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY CHIMANLAL AGRAWAL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1580/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Ahmedabad Dated 30/08/2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

147 of the Act without properly considering the contention of the Respondent various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent the reassessment proceedings before the A.O as well as in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after taking into consideration the submission of the Respondent and various judicial pronouncements relied upon

MOHSIN ZULFIKAR KORADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 147/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Mohsin Zulfikar Koradia The Pr.Cit-3 C/O.Gujarat Food Industries Vs Ahmedabad. 4324 Phase Iv Gidc Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Pan : Htpk 0799 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jamesh Kurian, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

147 On 20-11-2018 by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 2.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT has grievously erred in holding that the transaction of VAS Infrastructure Ltd shares was penny stock and engaged in providing accommodation entry so that the entire sale

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2239/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment. The appellant submits that the notice under Section 148 is bad in law. 4.0 The order passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad is bad in law and contrary to the facts. The CIT(A) has grossly failed to consider the facts and submissions and his decision is prejudicial and biased. 4.1 The appellant submits that

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

penny stock company M/s. Nyasa Corporation Limited was arranged through one Shri Naresh Jain, who had admitted that he was providing accommodation entries through such transactions. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the transactions made by the assessee as accommodation entry and the entire sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs.1,88,34,063/- was held as unexplained cash credit

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 715/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271F

147 of the Act. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 dated 31-03- 2021 was issued to the assessee. 3. In response, the assessee filed her Return of Income on 28-04- 2021 declaring total income of Rs.99,520/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271F for not filing the return will within the time limit prescribed u/s

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

u/s 147 of the Act by issuing the notice u/s.148 of the Act. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO while passing order disposing of appellant's objections has erred in not addressing the specific objections raised before him and having rejected the objections on the basis of irrelevant observations apart from

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

u/s 147 of the Act was passed on the basis of information available to the A.O. at that time, and therefore, the order cannot be deemed erroneous under the meaning of section 263. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several judicial decisions to support this contention. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this

NEETU HURKAT,PALI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Javed Khan, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

147 of the Act by\nissuance of notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021. During reassessment\nproceedings, the assessee was served with notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of\nthe Act, in response to which, the assessee submitted detailed replies along\nwith supporting documents and evidences. After considering the same, the\nAssessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 16.03.2022,\naccepting

JAYANTILAL PANACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 627/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

penny stock scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd.). 7.1 In view of the fact of the case and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is clear that the assessment order is passed by the A.O., without making proper examination of the issues mentioned above. The Assessing Officer has failed to make addition in accordance with the provisions

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

penny stock, whereas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment 8 order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

NIRMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

147 of the Act along with reasons recorded for reopening was issued to the assessee on 19.05.2021. On receipt of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessee filed objection against the reopening on 31.05.2021. The objection raised by the assessee was duly disposed off by this office by passing a speaking order on 01.09.2021. Thereafter, notice u/s