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.

4 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71Delhi62Ahmedabad41Jaipur34Raipur22Chennai21Bangalore19Lucknow17Hyderabad13Kolkata13Agra12Surat12Nagpur11Indore7Visakhapatnam5Pune4Chandigarh4Jodhpur3Patna3Rajkot2Dehradun2Jabalpur2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1476Section 1486Section 56(2)(vii)4Section 50C3Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 1442Section 56(2)2Section 263

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

2

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

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