Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai232 Ahmedabad68 Kolkata66 Delhi58 Jaipur51 Guwahati25 Pune21 Indore20 Chandigarh18 Rajkot15 Surat15 Ranchi12 Hyderabad9 Chennai9 Lucknow9 Raipur8 Patna7 Bangalore5 Visakhapatnam5 Amritsar3 Jodhpur2 Agra2 Nagpur2 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14812 Section 1478 Section 688 Reassessment5 Addition to Income5 Reopening of Assessment4 Natural Justice4 Section 103 Section 2503

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

penny stock. After recording of reasons and taking necessary approval from the competent authorities as per extended date by the CBDT, the approval was granted and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply on 30.10.2023 and the assessee also furnished reply from time to time in response to notice placed

MANOJ KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 621/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassessment proceedings ought to be conducted and concluded as per the new law prevailing when the order is passed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in effectively confirming the addition of Rs.39,54,750/- u/s 68 of the Act facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 147Section 68

stock exchange. The learned CIT – A held that the DDIT(Investigation) has made a detailed finding on the modus operandi of providing accommodation entries of long-term and short-term capital gain and business loss in the scrip of Sunstar Realty Development Ltd. to various beneficiaries. Thus the above investigation cannot be brushed aside and therefore he upheld the order

STAR CERAMICS ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala & Shri Hemasundar Rao P., CAsFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69A

penny stock transaction or bogus LTCG claim was involved. XII The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly complied with the notices issued and that the entire funds were ultimately transferred to another party, clearly demonstrating the absence of any intention of concealment of income. XIII The learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

stock exchange since they were not listed shares and that the loss of Rs.1,75,000/- was on account of proportionate stamp duty paid on purchase of shares which forms part of acquisition of shares and therefore it is an allowable loss. He thus submitted that the objection of non-granting of cross objection is therefore baseless. We have perused