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.

557 results for “reassessment”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai844Delhi557Jaipur164Kolkata142Bangalore92Ahmedabad90Hyderabad81Chandigarh71Chennai62Surat50Amritsar43Pune40Indore40Cochin30Guwahati23Rajkot23Agra22Visakhapatnam19Raipur18Lucknow14Nagpur11Patna6Calcutta4Jodhpur4Cuttack4Dehradun3Ranchi2SC1Panaji1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14787Section 6887Addition to Income85Section 153A77Section 14875Section 69C52Disallowance35Section 143(3)34Reassessment34Bogus Purchases

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 should not be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO has failed to invoke the provisions of section 69C

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

Showing 1–20 of 557 · Page 1 of 28

...
33
Section 153D27
Section 153C27

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

section 69C of the Act could not be invoked and, therefore, the reassessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

SUNITA GROVAR,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ROHTA, ROHTAK HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 147Section 263

69C read with Section 115BBE of the Act (taxing the income at 60%) with respect to the entire purchase amount of Rs.3,26,40,355. The Ld. PCIT passed the impugned order u/s. 263 on 10.03.2025, setting aside the final assessment order and directed the Ld. AO to pass a fresh order. The Ld. PCIT has alleged that

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4047/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

69C of the Act. The additions in respect of unexplained investment in M/s Prakash Industries are Rs. 77,85,000/- in AY 2009-10 and Rs. 39538700/- in AY 2010-11. 3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are that consequent to a search conducted on M/s Prakash Industries Ltd (PIL in short) under section

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4048/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

69C of the Act. The additions in respect of unexplained investment in M/s Prakash Industries are Rs. 77,85,000/- in AY 2009-10 and Rs. 39538700/- in AY 2010-11. 3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are that consequent to a search conducted on M/s Prakash Industries Ltd (PIL in short) under section

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4046/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

69C of the Act. The additions in respect of unexplained investment in M/s Prakash Industries are Rs. 77,85,000/- in AY 2009-10 and Rs. 39538700/- in AY 2010-11. 3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are that consequent to a search conducted on M/s Prakash Industries Ltd (PIL in short) under section

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

ITA/195/2012HC Delhi27 Jul 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 142Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153A

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

ITA - 195 / 2012HC Delhi27 Jul 2012
Section 132Section 142Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153A

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/176/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8986-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-164/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8989-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/177/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8985-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-175/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8990-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-176/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8986-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/175/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8990-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-177/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8985-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/164/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

reassess the income of the Assessee under Section 153C in respect of AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09? 5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the issues involved in the above captioned matters are as under:- 2015:DHC:8989-DB ITA 164/2015 & Other Connected Matters Page 5 of 40 5.1 Search and seizure operations were undertaken under Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

ITA 4041/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

reassessed consequently. In other words, after the search, the assessment for the 6 preceding assessment years under section 153A has necessarily to take place and there is no scope for any abatement. This is what comes out from the bare reading of the provisions of section 153A of the act. This is also been held by the Hon'ble Delhi

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4070/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

reassessed consequently. In other words, after the search, the assessment for the 6 preceding assessment years under section 153A has necessarily to take place and there is no scope for any abatement. This is what comes out from the bare reading of the provisions of section 153A of the act. This is also been held by the Hon'ble Delhi

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4066/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

reassessed consequently. In other words, after the search, the assessment for the 6 preceding assessment years under section 153A has necessarily to take place and there is no scope for any abatement. This is what comes out from the bare reading of the provisions of section 153A of the act. This is also been held by the Hon'ble Delhi

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4068/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 68

reassessed consequently. In other words, after the search, the assessment for the 6 preceding assessment years under section 153A has necessarily to take place and there is no scope for any abatement. This is what comes out from the bare reading of the provisions of section 153A of the act. This is also been held by the Hon'ble Delhi