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.

1,311 results for “reassessment”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,311Mumbai1,109Chennai460Jaipur349Hyderabad322Bangalore313Ahmedabad292Chandigarh188Kolkata184Raipur133Pune122Rajkot116Indore109Amritsar98Surat84Guwahati73Patna61Nagpur59Cochin52Visakhapatnam46Agra37Allahabad35Jodhpur35Lucknow32Ranchi28Dehradun22Cuttack21Panaji15Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14887Section 14773Addition to Income63Section 153A52Section 153D45Section 153C44Section 15335Reassessment34Section 13229Section 144C

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

26,13,49,042/-. 3.5 The assessee filed objection before the Ld. DRP who vide its order dated 24.12.2014 upheld the order of the Ld. AO/TPO. 3.6 Pursuant to the directions/ order of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 16.01.2015 making the aforesaid disallowance/ addition to the income returned by the assessee. 3.7 Aggrieved

Showing 1–20 of 1,311 · Page 1 of 66

...
27
Search & Seizure21
Limitation/Time-bar20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2458/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2457/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2459/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 22. As is evident from a reading of Section 270A(1), a person would be liable to be considered to have under reported its income if the contingencies spoken of in clauses

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

reassessment matters nor vests any such power in the Id. CIT(A), Even other wise the Instruction cannot substitute the independent statutory preconditions under Sections 147/148 read with Section 149, which provides the timelines for issuance of notice of Jurisdiction is assumed for reopening a particular assessment year. Even the power vested with Id. CIT(A) are reopening. Provision

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

reassessment matters nor vests any such power in the Id. CIT(A), Even other wise the Instruction cannot substitute the independent statutory preconditions under Sections 147/148 read with Section 149, which provides the timelines for issuance of notice of Jurisdiction is assumed for reopening a particular assessment year. Even the power vested with Id. CIT(A) are reopening. Provision

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

ITA/69/2008HC Delhi17 Sept 2012
Section 10Section 10BSection 14

reassessment of assessees claiming deduction under section 10A, it has been decided that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, shall not be denied to STP units only on the ground that the approval/registration to such units has been granted by the Directors of Software Technology Parks. However, it has to be ensured that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

26 March 2019. The\nprincipal question which stands posited for our\nconsideration is whether a failure on the part of the\npetitioner to electronically upload Form 10CCB along with\nits Return of Income and as per the time frames\ncontemplated under Section 139 would constitute a valid\nground for the reassessment action being initiated or for\nthe respondents asserting that

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4023/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, irrespective of whether any adverse material was discovered with respect to the abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4022/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, irrespective of whether any adverse material was discovered with respect to the abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4021/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, irrespective of whether any adverse material was discovered with respect to the abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

ITA 4273/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must be satisfied that the seized material would "have a bearing on the determination

ALKA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

ITA 4272/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must be satisfied that the seized material would "have a bearing on the determination

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

ITA 4213/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must be satisfied that the seized material would "have a bearing on the determination

ALKA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

ITA 4271/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

26. It was submitted in this regard that if the AO of the non-searched entity were countenanced to have the authority to issue a notice referable to Section 153C, abated AYs', the same would clearly be contrary to Section 153C, which mandates that the AO must be satisfied that the seized material would "have a bearing on the determination