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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Cochin18Jaipur11Bangalore10Chennai10Delhi10Surat9Amritsar7Ahmedabad6Indore6Cuttack5Jabalpur4Hyderabad3Kolkata2Ranchi1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271B9Section 143(3)8Reassessment8Deduction6Addition to Income6Section 1475Section 271C5Depreciation5Penalty5Section 144

M/S. BSI GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5949/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. Sreenivasa Rao, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 44A

reassessment of management systems training and ISO certification. The assessee filed its return of income on 28.01.2010 declaring gross total income of Rs.1,02,89,523/- before set off of brought forward losses. The AO issued the notice dated 30.03.2013 u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause

GAGAN GAUTAM,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

3
Section 273B3
Section 250(6)3
ITA 5996/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
09 Jul 2021
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Judical Member & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

273B does provide that the penalty is not to be imposed if the assessee has reasonable cause for non-compliance. Since, in this case, the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation to justify the non-compliance, therefore, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty under section 271(l)(b) of the I.T. Act. 6.6 In view

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

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. 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

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

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

RAJESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4701/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 153C of the Act, without jurisdiction as no incriminating material for this assessment year was found in an income-tax search conducted on some other assessee. This has also been confirmed by the same CIT(A) in the quantum appellate order dated 27/09/2024 in the case of the appellant itself by quashing the assessment order

RAMESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4696/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 153C of the Act, without jurisdiction as no incriminating material for this assessment year was found in an income-tax search conducted on some other assessee. This has also been confirmed by the same CIT(A) in the quantum appellate order dated 27/09/2024 in the case of the appellant itself by quashing the assessment order

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES CO. P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-74, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

273B of the Act. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal either before or during the course of the appellate proceedings in the interest of the natural justice.” 2. In this case, assessment order