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.

7 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai14Bangalore7Delhi7Ahmedabad5Kolkata4Jaipur3Karnataka1Chennai1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 270A17Section 143(3)7Section 115J6Section 2636Addition to Income6Section 1485Section 1475Section 92C4Transfer Pricing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/578/2012HC Delhi17 Apr 2013
For Appellant: Mr Rohit Madan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Vikas Jain
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

u/s 271(1)(e) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately. ITA No.578/12 Page 5 of 22 (P. K. Sharma) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1), New Delhi. Copy to the Assessee. Sd/- ACTT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi.” 4. It would be apparent from the above computation of the total income that no addition had been

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4
Section 1433
Penalty2
Reassessment2
ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in Section 271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

147.\n\n8.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action taken\nagainst the assessee company again and again under different\nproceedings under the Act on the basis of audit objection, which\nwere completed after due verification of said investor companies, so\nagain initiation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 on the basis of\nsame audit objection

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

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‗Rules‘); not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises (‗AEs‘) 2.2 ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 134 as the tested party, being the least complex of the transacting entities and instead considering the appellant as the tested party