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.

32 results for “reassessment”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai52Delhi32Raipur31Jaipur25Chennai17Ahmedabad15Bangalore13Indore10Kolkata8Cuttack6Cochin5Guwahati5Pune4Visakhapatnam3Surat3Lucknow2Chandigarh2Rajkot1Hyderabad1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 8031Section 14722Section 153A22Section 143(3)18Depreciation17Section 271(1)(c)14Section 13214Section 14213Reassessment12Deduction

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

32(1)(iia) of the Act, in respect of computer software ‘Primeavera’. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the aforesaid penalty, without appreciating that the disallowance of additional depreciation in respect of computer software ‘Primavera’ was itself, in the first place, erroneous and therefore, there was no warrant to levy any penalty in respect

LNG SECURITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3708/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 80I11
Addition to Income11
11 Jul 2016
AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.V. Kale, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234A

reassessment order under Section 147 has been carried out by the AO taking it to be mistake obvious & apparent. But the AO chose not to consider these facts on an application by the Assessee on the ground that this does not get covered under Section 154. 6. However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1003/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 69

32 (Gauhati) as per which where a statutory period runs from a named date to another or the statue requires prescribes some period of days of weeks or months or years within some acts has to be done generally the first day of the period will be excluded from the reckoning and consequently the last day will be included. Thus

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4157/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

reassess" to the completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as the pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 4158/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 153A

reassess" to the completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as the pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings under section 144/148 of the Act. 2.2 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in holding that sufficient evidence has not been placed to demonstrate that the relevant devices/ equipment falls within the ambit of 'Energy Saving Devices' eligible for higher depreciation 80% under the Act. 2.3 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

ITA 5511/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3708/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5855/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2208/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4144/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 323/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2241/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 80

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

ITA 2812/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

ITA 2983/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

ITA 2761/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

ITA 2813/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

ITA 2966/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

ITA 2985/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

ITA 2982/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions