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.

14 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi14Raipur6Mumbai6Pune5Ahmedabad3Jaipur3Lucknow3Bangalore3Chennai2Amritsar2Indore1Agra1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 55A20Section 14717Section 14813Addition to Income13Section 54E9Reassessment6Section 2635Capital Gains5Reopening of Assessment

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

5
Section 1323
Section 543
Section 1433

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

55A. 3.4. That further the learned CIT(A) failed to appre4ciate the ratio laid down in ITO v Padarti Venkata Rama Chandra Rao [2016] 74 Taxmann.Com 195 in differentiating Cost of Acquisition u/s 55(2)(b) of the Act from "Fair Market Value". 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts that stamp valuation as adopted for capital

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

55A of the Act which was received after the completion of reassessment proceedings, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the act of the Ld. Assessing Officer to convert the reassessment proceedings made on 3 ITA. 2724 /Del/2015 AND C.O. 456/Del/2015 protective

KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3268/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 49(1)Section 54B

55A, 142(2A), etc. are not applicable in such cases because fair market value is not applicable under such circumstances without the option of the assessee. 6. That the ld. A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts in initiating proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of full value of sale consideration without deducting 4 Kartar Singh there

AKANSHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 153DSection 250Section 45Section 55ASection 69C

reassessment order is illegal, invalid and has been issued and passed without having valid jurisdiction upon the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO, despite the fact that the same has been passed violating the provisions

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SAIDAN KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4496/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4496/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Sh. Saidan Kapoor, J-6, 1St Floor, Ndse, Part-I, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk3289R Assessee By : Sh. Om Prakash, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Om Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 55A

reassessment. The relevant findings have been given in paras 5.1 to 5.5 of the impugned order which read as under: “5.1 The first and the foremost issue, that is to be decided in this appeal is- "Whether the proceedings u/s 147 has been correctly initiated or not?" The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nilofer

JITINDER SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

reassessment accordingly. Whereas in the present case, the ld. Pr. CIT had passed the assessment order and assessed the income of the assessee. It was stated that the assessment order 7 ITA No. 2732/Del./2018 Jitinder Singh Chadha passed by the ld. Pr. CIT was a non-jurisdictional assessment order and the department cannot take shelter of Section 292B

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH ARVIND KHANNA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1703/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv
Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

55A of the IT. Act, 1961 read with, section 16A(5) of the wealth Tax Act, 1957 was received which indicated that the fair market value on the date of the transfer (i.e. 30.10.2003) was determined at Rs: 9,87,08,000/-. Therefore it became apparent that a concern that had assets worth net asset value

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH ARVIND KHANNA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv
Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

55A of the IT. Act, 1961 read with, section 16A(5) of the wealth Tax Act, 1957 was received which indicated that the fair market value on the date of the transfer (i.e. 30.10.2003) was determined at Rs: 9,87,08,000/-. Therefore it became apparent that a concern that had assets worth net asset value

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 964/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

147,806.00 2018-19 5,792,444.00 6,669,000.00 876,556.00 Total 16,898,979.00 19,456,300.00 2,557,321.00 Therefore, there is a small difference of Rs 2,557,321/- in the cost of construction as per assessee and estimated by the DVO. Sir, the valuation made by the DVO is only an estimated cost of construction

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing