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.

8 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai58Chennai33Bangalore28Kolkata8Delhi8Cochin6Jodhpur6Ahmedabad3Jaipur3Hyderabad2Guwahati1Patna1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 14813Section 1479Section 567Addition to Income7Section 143(3)5Section 285Reassessment5Reopening of Assessment5Disallowance

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

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. ZILA SAHIKARI BANK LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal and cross objection both are dismissed

5
Section 1434
Section 684
Section 36(1)(viia)3
ITA 3/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraita No:- 3/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act the AO had recorded wrong reasons as the appellant had not claimed additional deduction of 5% as stated in the reasons recorded by the AO. Instead the appellant had claimed deduction at the rate of 7.5% as per Section 36(1)(viia

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 881/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and SumitFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 68

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

ITA 1251/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

viia) that governs the taxation of receipts of shares of a company, the AO could not have invoked Section 28(iv) of the Act in respect of such transaction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VI GROUND NO. VII: REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ("DVO") BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Return declaring an income of Rs. 1,99,990/- filed on 14.09.2009 and same was processed u/s 143(1). The assessee derieves income from running of BKO. Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Subsequently survey operation u/s 133A of the income-tax Act, 1961 was carryout on 21.3.2012 at the business premises

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 708/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Return declaring an income of Rs. 1,99,990/- filed on 14.09.2009 and same was processed u/s 143(1). The assessee derieves income from running of BKO. Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Subsequently survey operation u/s 133A of the income-tax Act, 1961 was carryout on 21.3.2012 at the business premises

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 706/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Return declaring an income of Rs. 1,99,990/- filed on 14.09.2009 and same was processed u/s 143(1). The assessee derieves income from running of BKO. Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Subsequently survey operation u/s 133A of the income-tax Act, 1961 was carryout on 21.3.2012 at the business premises

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

ITA/116/2023HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

36. The aforenoted appeal which stood tagged with the batch poses the following question of law for our consideration: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.05.2019 and the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section