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.

311 results for “reassessment”+ Section 255(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi311Mumbai278Jaipur74Chennai64Chandigarh61Bangalore57Ahmedabad35Kolkata30Telangana27Pune25Hyderabad25Raipur21Allahabad20Guwahati17Cochin15Surat13Cuttack12Jodhpur10Patna10Indore9Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8Lucknow5Karnataka4Orissa4Rajkot3Ranchi3Nagpur2SC2Kerala2Agra1J&K1Rajasthan1Dehradun1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 6886Section 14782Section 153A74Addition to Income70Section 153D66Section 14861Section 143(3)41Section 153C38Section 143(2)31Reassessment

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

255 ITR 137 (Mad.) and in the case of CIT v. HH Lekshmi Bai reported in 203 ITR 398 (Ker.). 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the CIT assumed that the reassessment

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 311 · Page 1 of 16

...
30
Search & Seizure27
Reopening of Assessment19

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

ITA 154/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

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

ITA 5739/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) arises on account of difference of opinion between two learned Members of the Division Bench. By an order dated 14.02.2025, the following question has been formulated for being decided by the Third Member : 37 "Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) arises on account of difference of opinion between two learned Members of the Division Bench. By an order dated 14.02.2025, the following question has been formulated for being decided by the Third Member : 37 "Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening under Section

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

INTERGLOBAL STEELS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 148/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submit that though the assessee has sought adjournment before the ld. CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) ignored this fact and decided the appeal as ex-parte. He thus submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submit that though the assessee has sought adjournment before the ld. CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) ignored this fact and decided the appeal as ex-parte. He thus submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

DCIT, CC-06, NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN INFRADEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 80/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

GOLDEN JOB FINDER P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-11(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2830/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian , AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.N.A Nazmi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee to explain, why the deduction claimed towards payment of lease rent amounting to Rs.6,68,43,636/- to State Bank of India should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the lease rent of Rs.19,28,97,000/- debited

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 909/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee to explain, why the deduction claimed towards payment of lease rent amounting to Rs.6,68,43,636/- to State Bank of India should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the lease rent of Rs.19,28,97,000/- debited

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 908/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee to explain, why the deduction claimed towards payment of lease rent amounting to Rs.6,68,43,636/- to State Bank of India should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the lease rent of Rs.19,28,97,000/- debited

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee to explain, why the deduction claimed towards payment of lease rent amounting to Rs.6,68,43,636/- to State Bank of India should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the lease rent of Rs.19,28,97,000/- debited

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2180/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee to explain, why the deduction claimed towards payment of lease rent amounting to Rs.6,68,43,636/- to State Bank of India should not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the lease rent of Rs.19,28,97,000/- debited

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

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

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

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

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

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria