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”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55 Mumbai54 Jaipur44 Ahmedabad35 Raipur21 Chennai20 Lucknow18 Kolkata16 Nagpur13 Surat12 Hyderabad11 Agra11 Bangalore11 Indore10 Guwahati9 Visakhapatnam5 Chandigarh5 Rajkot5 Patna4 Jodhpur4 Pune3 Dehradun3 Amritsar1 Panaji1 Cuttack1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1477 Section 1487 Section 50C6 Section 56(2)(vii)4 Addition to Income4 Section 143(3)3 Section 1442 Section 2632 Section 56(2)2

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

reassessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1), along with questionnaires, were issued by the AO seeking specific details regarding the said transaction. 4. The AO noted that despite repeated opportunities, no credible explanation or evidence for cost of acquisition of the property was furnished. Therefore, vide show cause notice dated 17.02.2023, the AO proposed to treat the full amount

ANAND SAWROOP,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50Section 50C

50C of the Act, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Against the said findings and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and has sold a piece of agriculture land

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 806/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 147Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

reassessed the assessee’s income at Rs. 5,87,09,868/-, adding Rs. 4,63,21,268/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) due to the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 8,24,08,250/- and the purchase price of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- of a property. 5.1 The order passed by the Ld. assessing officer

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 89/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 147Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

reassessed the assessee’s income at Rs. 5,87,09,868/-, adding Rs. 4,63,21,268/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) due to the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 8,24,08,250/- and the purchase price of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- of a property. 5.1 The order passed by the Ld. assessing officer

SH. RAM LAL,ROPAR vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

50C of the Act while computing the capital gains. 8. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order, dated 20.07.2018, allowed the appeal. It is against the said Order that the Revenue has come up with the above appeal. 9. It is seen from paragraph No.10