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 43Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai25Mumbai25Delhi8Kolkata6Bangalore3Pune2Indore2Hyderabad1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 144C6Section 92C6Section 1475Addition to Income5Section 234B4Permanent Establishment4Double Taxation/DTAA4Limitation/Time-bar

M/S. NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3179/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 43A

43A despite the fact that the said section is not applicable to the facts in assessee’s case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has further erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the above addition by referring to the provisions of section 36 of the Act, despite the fact that

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

4
Section 143(3)3
Section 144C(13)3
Section 1533

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 159/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 92C

43A of the Act, which provisions are held to be prospective by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governor reported in 294 ITR 451, which decision has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woordward Governor reported in 312 ITR 254 (SC). Therefore, we allow this ground

M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2539/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

43A of the Act, which provisions are held to be prospective by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governor reported in 294 ITR 451, which decision has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woordward Governor reported in 312 ITR 254 (SC). Therefore, we allow this ground

M/S. NBCC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4846/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 37(1)

147 to 151 and the notice being beyond the period of limitation, too have been decided by the first appellate authority with categorical observation that “case of the assessee was reopened by the AO u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 after duly recording of the reasons. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon

AMADEUS GLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA,SPAIN vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 80HSection 9

147 (1977)  Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. and Ors. v. J.D. Pharmaceuticals and Anr.: (2005) 13 SCC 19 (SC)  CIT vs. The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd.: 57 ITR 422 (Kar HC) The fact of the matter is that the aforesaid expenditure has been actually incurred and gone out of the coffers of the appellant and has been received