Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

27 results for “reassessment”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai637 Delhi434 Chennai260 Kolkata254 Bangalore180 Jaipur169 Ahmedabad108 Chandigarh92 Pune88 Hyderabad73 Indore61 Raipur58 Visakhapatnam52 Rajkot39 Cochin39 Cuttack37 Amritsar27 Nagpur25 Agra21 Allahabad21 Patna21 Surat15 Lucknow14 Jodhpur12 Karnataka10 Dehradun7 Jabalpur7 Guwahati5 Ranchi4 Calcutta3 Varanasi3 SC2 Himachal Pradesh2 Kerala1 Panaji1 Rajasthan1 Telangana1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 263147 Section 143(3)39 Section 153A35 Section 14724 Addition to Income18 Section 14816 Revision u/s 26315 Reassessment10 Section 271(1)(c)8 Section 271D

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

reassessment is not permissible .Accordingly after issue of certificate in respect of tax in dispute revision u/s 263 is not permissible

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

8

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments: • CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma as reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del, HC) “In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment, Assessing Officer did not invoke section 68, however, Commissioner exercising his revisionary power under section 263 set aside assessment orders directing Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after conducting detailed enquiry and upon satisfying on genuneness of transaction - Whether order of Commissioner was not based on irrelevant considerations and further in present circumstances, he was not obliged to positively

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

ITA 410/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 263

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this case. 2. That the Id. Pr.CIT, grossly erred in law, to hold the re-assessment order passed u/s,143(3)/147, as erroneous u/s.263, by relying upon a purported mis-match list, subsequently procured by her from the ETO, unmindful that the Id. lTO had concluded reassessment based on material available

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

reassessment is not permissible. Accordingly, after issue of certificate in respect of tax in dispute revision u/s 263 is not permissible

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

revision u/s 263. 5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

ITA 117/ASR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

263 of the Act’61 , on the ground that the proper investigation and enquiry has not been made 5 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT by the Assessing Officer, which has resulted in the order passed being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The relevant portion of the shows cause notice is reproduced

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

revision. An administrative order may or may not be, A order of assessment is subject to exercise of an order of a revisional jurisdiction under section 263” 9. The counsel argued that as per the provisions of section 263 r.w.s. 2(7A) and section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (supra), the Pr. CIT has no power to review

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

revision. An administrative order may or may not be, A order of assessment is subject to exercise of an order of a revisional jurisdiction under section 263” 9. The counsel argued that as per the provisions of section 263 r.w.s. 2(7A) and section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (supra), the Pr. CIT has no power to review

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 277/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 276/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 280/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 278/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 279/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 275/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 281/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 263

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

GURMAIL DASS SIDDHAR (DECEASED) THRU LH NIRANJAN KAUR(WIDOW),HOSHIARPUR vs. ITO W-1 , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 352/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 352/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gurmail Dass Siddhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1, (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Hoshiarpur. Niranjan Kaur, Widow Garshankar, Ward No. 2 Near Banga Road Octroi, Garshankar, Hoshiarpur. [Pan:-Bwzps4561C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

revision before the jurisdictional PCIT, Jalandhar and vide 263 order dated 23.01.2019 assessment was set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication in compliance to the 263 order. 4.2 However, said order u/s 263 dated 23.01.2019 was appealed against before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, and the tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2022 in I.T.A

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

Reassessment made by the Assessing officer U/s 143 (3) read with section 263 of Income Tax Act and confirmed by CIT (A) is bad in law, especially when there is no new material available with the Assessing officer and all the facts were duly verified by the Assessing officer while framing the assessment and same was brought to the knowledge

SHRI SUCHHA SINGH THROUGH L/R RANJIT SINGH,KAPUTHALLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 36/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (Ld. CIT) - DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

revision u/s 263 wherein it was alleged that no plausible explanation was furnished by the assessee on the investment so made in the immovable property. The assessment was framed out without carrying out necessary verification and accordingly, the assessee was show- caused. The assessee opposed the same, inter-alia, on the ground that the reassessment

SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 142/ASR/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

263, dated 22.03.2002). The said rate of profit stood reduced to 2.5% in first appeal, and the assessee did not carry the matter further. Penalty proceedings, initiated at the conclusion of the assessments, were proceeded with. Penalty was levied in respect of the additional profit on the undisclosed turnover (i.e., with reference to the original return); the assessee not furnishing