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.

22 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi540Mumbai244Jaipur146Bangalore117Chandigarh94Hyderabad85Raipur54Ahmedabad50Kolkata48Chennai38Pune37Lucknow35Telangana24Indore23Guwahati22Amritsar22Nagpur21Surat21Patna20Jodhpur18Cochin15Rajkot12Dehradun8Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Agra5Allahabad4Orissa2Rajasthan1SC1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14847Section 14722Section 6818Addition to Income16Section 56(1)(vii)15Section 12715Section 153A9Section 54B9Section 143

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 308/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

8
Reopening of Assessment8
Reassessment7
Cash Deposit4
ITA 408/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 671/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SHRI KIRANJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 723/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250(6)

section 149 of income tax act, 1961. 6. That no valid notice u/s 148 is ever served to justify that the reassessment proceedings is as per law. I.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice u/s 148 by affixture is illegal, bad in law and is liable

M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

section 147 is not satisfied with regard to reopening the case beyond 4 years. Now, the point wise explanation of the above points are provided as under: 1.4 It is submitted that the case of the assessee has already been assessed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act and the then Ld. AO has applied his mind while framing his assessment

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

127 DTR 241 and Kishan Chand Chela Ram reported in 125 ITR 713. 6. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the part of the purchases from the same party under similar circumstances to the tune of Rs.15,16,294/- have been accepted and non-acceptance of such purchases under similar circumstances from the same party is against

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof 6. That while confirming

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof 6. That while confirming

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

147 on the basis of wrong reasons recorded and also agitated the issue that reassessment in this case has been done after three years where the income escaped assessment is less than 50 lacs (fifty lakhs). 5 I.T.A. No. 541/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 10. Ground nos. 1, 2 & 3 relates to the issue where the ld. first appellate authority

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 731/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 730/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 340/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)(b)

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Condonation of delay:- The appeal is belated by 18 days. The assessee filed 2. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been