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.

114 results for “reassessment”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai114Delhi114Bangalore59Chennai55Hyderabad40Kolkata23Jaipur18Cochin13Ahmedabad12Lucknow11Karnataka10Surat10Pune9Indore6Telangana6Guwahati3Amritsar3Cuttack3Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Dehradun1Jodhpur1Orissa1Panaji1Ranchi1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 148116Section 147106Section 10A80Section 143(3)56Addition to Income54Reassessment38Section 80I37Deduction36Section 10B34Section 143(2)

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/347/2011HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 72

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/2067/2010HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10A

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

30
Section 6830
Reopening of Assessment24
Section 143(3)
Section 260A
Section 72

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

section 10A of the Act in respect of the BPO and GNR units of the assessee should only include profits from export of software and not the profits earned by providing technical services outside India ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

section 10A of the Act in respect of the BPO and GNR units of the assessee should only include profits from export of software and not the profits earned by providing technical services outside India ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

section 10A of the Act in respect of the BPO and GNR units of the assessee should only include profits from export of software and not the profits earned by providing technical services outside India ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

ITA 511/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on mere change of opinion especially when the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act has been

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

ITA 510/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on mere change of opinion especially when the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act has been

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

EDAG ENGINEERING & DESIGN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5262/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Anubhav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kedia, CIT/DR
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 271(1)Section 92C(2)

10A before setting off of depreciation and carry forward losses. 6 ITA No.5262/Del./2010 7. The learned AO also made disallowance u/s. 14 of Rs.15,000/-, which was not pressed by the ld. AR before us. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2796/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 13/03/2006 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed another return of income on 25/04/2006 declaring nil total income after claiming deduction of Rs.6,94,22,784/- under section 10A

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2797/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 13/03/2006 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed another return of income on 25/04/2006 declaring nil total income after claiming deduction of Rs.6,94,22,784/- under section 10A

M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2798/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 13/03/2006 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed another return of income on 25/04/2006 declaring nil total income after claiming deduction of Rs.6,94,22,784/- under section 10A

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

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4) reads as under- "Section 108: Special provisions in respect off newly established hundred per cent export oriented undertakings (1) Subject to the provisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT SMARTSERVE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5173/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

reassessment. We are of the view that if no assessment had been made, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to conclude that income had already escaped assessment. 12. This being the position, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law that arises for our consideration and we do not find any error in the view

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

reassessment. We are of the view that if no assessment had been made, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to conclude that income had already escaped assessment. 12. This being the position, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law that arises for our consideration and we do not find any error in the view

M/S SMART CUBE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 5473/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Stay Application No.109/Del Of 2018 (In Ita No.5473/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

reassessment proceedings to convert the claim originally made u/s 10B of the Act into a claim u/s 10A of the Act. Learned CIT(A), therefore, turned down the claim of the assessee u/s 10A of the Act. 4. Challenging this finding, the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee also filed Stay Application seeking stay of demand of Rs.2

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal