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.

8 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 145(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai484Delhi402Jaipur132Bangalore118Ahmedabad103Chandigarh73Raipur68Chennai64Kolkata63Rajkot54Surat42Pune32Hyderabad31Lucknow30Telangana26Agra20Nagpur19Jodhpur15Patna11Indore10Cuttack10Allahabad10Amritsar8Cochin7Visakhapatnam6Guwahati5Orissa2Panaji2SC1Varanasi1Dehradun1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14826Section 26316Section 271D8Section 1476Section 269S6Addition to Income6Reopening of Assessment5Section 143(3)3Section 131

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69

145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. MintuKalita High Court Of Gauhati (2001) 170 CTR (Gau) 149: (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) : (2001) 117 Taxman 388 (Gau) Pg. 49 to 52 case laws. Harbhajan Kaur v. ITO e) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Bharti & Vijay Kumar Goel High

3
Section 250(6)3
Reassessment3
Penalty2

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 292/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

2 above. Therefore, this point is not relevant to draw conclusion in context of assessee appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is requested that the proceedings so initiated under section 147/148 may kindly be dropped as there is no valid basis for conducting assessment and reasons u/s 147 of the Act. This

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 293/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

2 above. Therefore, this point is not relevant to draw conclusion in context of assessee appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is requested that the proceedings so initiated under section 147/148 may kindly be dropped as there is no valid basis for conducting assessment and reasons u/s 147 of the Act. This

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

145(3) and, the AO raised no doubt, about the sales and closing stock nor any defect have been pointed out in day to day maintenance of books of accounts, in quantitative details and no enquiry have been made by the AO from the ‘Toll Barriers’ and, as such, the whole basis for making the addition on, merits was surmises

SHRI GURCHARAN SINGH ,GARSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

2,33,480/- on 03.08.2006 at Rampur. Subsequently, proceedings under Sec. 147 were initiated against and notice under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to the assessee on 22.03.2013 which was served upon him on 23.03.2013. The assessee is a bank employee. As per information available with assessing officer, the assessee entered into an agreement dated

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

147 of the Act, the condition precedent is reason to believe that income had escaped assessment but not establishment of the fact of actual escapement of income. Accordingly, while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, there should be evidence on record or specific information received from outside agencies or gathered by the AO to demonstrate that there