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.

69 results for “reassessment”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai100Delhi69Jaipur65Chandigarh46Bangalore39Hyderabad20Surat19Agra18Rajkot15Chennai14Ahmedabad12Visakhapatnam9Indore8Dehradun6Raipur6Cuttack4Pune3Kolkata2Cochin2Lucknow1Jodhpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 153A130Addition to Income67Disallowance46Section 69B42Unexplained Investment36Bogus Purchases35Section 6832Section 14829Section 69C23Section 143(3)

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 69C

reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue therefore they are taken together for consideration. 9. Before us, Ld. AR submits that the AO has made the addition by holding the purchases as bogus against which first appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A). As per ld. AR, the AO has taken a plausible view

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

22
Search & Seizure18
Section 13217

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3378/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

Section 147Section 148Section 15BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

69B, section 69C, Section 69D if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty percent, and (ii) the amount of income tax with which the assessee would been chargeable

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 69B for AY 2012-13. Based on this finding of the CIT(A), reassessment proceedings were initiated under section

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 937/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69B

reassessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) is in violation of mandatory provision of section 153D of the Act and as such is bad in the eyes law. That the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind.” 6. The additional ground sought to be raised being

HECTOR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1692/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 153ASection 45

reassess taking into\nconsideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can\nbe made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material\nfound during the course of search under s. 132. or requisition\nunder S. 132A of the 1961 Act. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be reopened

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1096/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 14Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 163Section 263

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT vs. DR. LEENA CHAUDHARY, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Acit Vs. Dr. Leena Chaudhary Central Circle A-43/A, Defence Colony, Meerut Meerut -250001 Pan No.Acrpp0653M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. P.S. Kashyap, Ca Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2024 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69BSection 69C

69B of the Act. Therefore he submitted that the order of CIT(A) be set aside. 5. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that the book of account of the assessee has not been rejected by AO. He has also submitted wholesale medicine sale, retail medicine sale and professional practice cannot be done without employees. He has further submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2844/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2633/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2845/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2635/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2634/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2632/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2846/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

ACIT, CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN BATRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 32/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

reassessment. 8 ITA No.32/Del/2020 & CO No.69/Del/2020 6.4.2 The provision of section 199l state that the amount of undisclosed income declared in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 199C shall not be included in the total income of declarant for any A.Y. under Income Tax Act. 6.4.3 The provision of section 199L state that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 10(2) , NEW DELHI

ITA 2401/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: \nSh. Chandan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal also noted that the valuation of the jewellery was not properly established by the AO.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "69B