BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

268 results for “reassessment”+ Section 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,464Mumbai3,044Chennai1,025Bangalore1,020Kolkata547Hyderabad534Ahmedabad525Jaipur478Chandigarh268Pune223Raipur187Rajkot158Indore144Amritsar122Surat121Cochin95Patna94Visakhapatnam93Nagpur86Lucknow74Guwahati71Cuttack62Agra58Dehradun53Jodhpur52Ranchi43Allahabad37SC36Karnataka25Panaji21Telangana18Calcutta10Kerala9Orissa9Rajasthan8Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1J&K1Madhya Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 26390Section 153A77Section 143(3)66Section 14865Section 14756Addition to Income51Section 13230Reassessment26Section 6920Section 139(1)

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 374/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

Showing 1–20 of 268 · Page 1 of 14

...
16
Search & Seizure16
Unexplained Investment13

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 355/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(36)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 351/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 352/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 354/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 353/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

17. We therefore find that the term “incriminating material” have to be read and understood in the context of one or more of the conditions stipulated in section 132(1) and on satisfaction of which, a search can be authorised and search warrant can be issued. That is, there is information in possession of the competent authority and basis which

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

section 147 is totally silent on the said matter and even there is no inquiry whatsoever which have been conducted by the AO during the reassessment proceedings and therefore the order so passed by the AO is clearly erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 16. Regarding transfer expenses and CLU charges, it was submitted

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

17. Also it is relevant to point out that the issue relating to GDR receipts is not part of the reasons recorded for reassessment proceeding against which notice u/s 148 issued on 31st March, 2018. However you have sought to justify the same by referring to the provisions of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 815/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 814 & 815/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Avinash Singla, Central Circle-1, बनाम C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Acypk9591N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Meenu Singla, बनाम Central Circle-1, C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No.Afips6556G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Section 132A, 814-815-Chd-2023 & 15-Chd-2024- Avinash Singla & Meenu Singla, Khanna 17 the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

Reassessment without jurisdiction and illegal :- It is submitted by the assessee company is that during the relevant assessment year 2015-16, the assessee had in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, claimed deduction for bad debts written off aggregating to Rs. 62,15,000/- viz(1) Bank guarantee invoked by the Jalandhar City Transport Services

AMARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270A

reassessment proceedings under section 148 read with section 144A, and defective approval under section 151. The assessee also disputed the addition of Rs 17

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148BSection 151Section 69A

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval shows that it was obtained in reference

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148BSection 151Section 69A

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval shows that it was obtained in reference

MANDEEP KAUR,FATEHABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 1, FATEHABAD

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 630/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

reassessment proceedings. 4. Pursuant to the said judgment, CBDT issued instruction no. 01/2022 on 11-05-2022 detailing the procedure to be followed in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the same, the underlying information / material as relied upon by Ld. AO on the basis of which proceedings u/s 148 were initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

ITA 556/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nThe DCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

17.\nAlso it is relevant to point out that the issue relating to GDR receipts is not part of\nthe reasons recorded for reassessment proceeding against which notice u/s 148\nissued on 31st March, 2018. However you have sought to justify the same by\nreferring to the provisions of Section

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

17. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that original assessments were framed under Section 153A. According to the position of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 149 taxman.com 399, the additions in an assessment under Section 153A was to be made

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

17-B,Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP3942J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 239/CHANDI/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

17-B,Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP3942J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

17-B,Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP3942J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 831/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

17-B,Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP3942J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present