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.

9 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 40aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai173Delhi145Chennai95Bangalore73Amritsar37Kolkata25Raipur23Jaipur22Rajkot20Indore16Agra14Pune12Hyderabad10Jodhpur10Ahmedabad9Lucknow9Nagpur2Cuttack1Cochin1Dehradun1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 1477Section 14A5Section 2635Disallowance5Addition to Income5Section 1484Section 40A(3)4Section 145(2)

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

u/s. 148. ” 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 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad
4
Section 683
Reassessment3
Survey u/s 133A3
31 May 2022
AY 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

u/s. 148. ” 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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

147. No new material/tangible material has been brought on record by AO which justify such reassessment notice and on the contrary, re-computation is made based upon facts already on the record of AO. Thus, issuance of notice for alleged escapement of income by making re-computation of disallowance u/s 14A on same issue is certainly change of opinion

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassess the total income of six preceding assessment years, even if the earlier assessments had been completed under section 143(1) or 143(3). However, that decision was premised on the fact that incriminating material (loan documents and supporting GPAs) was actually recovered during the search of the assessee himself, which linked the assessee directly to undisclosed transactions. Likewise

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 291/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

reassess the total income of such years. The\nprovision is mandatory in its operation once the assessee is a searched\nperson.\n9.2 On the other hand, section 153C of the Act applies in a situation\nwhere, during the course of a search on one person, the Assessing Officer\nis satisfied that money, bullion, jewellery or documents seized actually\npertain

DINESHBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2054/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 144BSection 147Section 270ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

reassessment proceedings, the\nAssessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown purchases\namounting to Rs.14,24,58,326/- made in cash allegedly for\nprocuring agricultural commodities such as Raydo and other\nproduce. The assessee failed to submit complete books of\naccount, purchase bills, or supporting ledgers. Only bills\naggregating to Rs.26,04,914/- were furnished, with the balance\npurchases remaining

AFFAQUE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 299/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 68

40A(2)(b) of the Act thereby assessing the total income of Rs.1,67,43,373/-. 2.1. On perusal of the above reassessment records by Ld. PCIT, the assessee company has made total cash deposits of Rs.2,09,79,700/-, however in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has made an addition only to the extent of Rs.1 crore. Thus

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 247/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR &
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148

reassessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 23.03.2005 and he made major disallowance on account of depreciation and interest solely relying upon the order for A. Y. 2000-01 . (4) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) for A.Ys 1997-98 and 1998-99 and also A.Ys.1999-2000,2001-02 and 2002-03 which

SHRI KAMLESH JAYANTILAL JHAVERI,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kamlesh Jayantilal Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs Ward 10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Barrage Road, Ahmedabad Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aetpj 5973 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-5 [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 26.02.2015; And, The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Loss Of Rs.12.64 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 145Section 145(2)

u/s. 40A(2)(b) and also the fact that there is no allegation of any collusion or arrangement with these party by which the profit has been manipulated. Merely, decline in GP by itself cannot be the reason for rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the income as was held in following judicial pronouncements.” 3. The Assessing Officer