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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 50C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55Mumbai54Jaipur44Ahmedabad35Raipur21Chennai20Lucknow18Kolkata16Nagpur13Surat12Agra12Hyderabad11Indore10Bangalore10Guwahati9Visakhapatnam5Chandigarh5Rajkot5Patna4Jodhpur4Pune3Dehradun3Amritsar1Panaji1Cuttack1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1477Section 1487Section 50C6Section 56(2)(vii)4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 1442Section 2632Section 56(2)2

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

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

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

2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). Based on information received by the department, the assessee had executed a sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 88,00,000/- but had paid stamp duty on Rs.1,51,00,000/-. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated. The assessee had not filed a return of income

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

2. The information furnished by the assessee has duly been examined and verified that the assessee was deposited only cash of Rs. 10,50,000/- on in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Ropar. The said amount was given his mother Smt. Sarla Devi after sold her plot an amounting to Rs. 10,34,000/- dt. 08/12/2010 for further