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.

75 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 15clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,808Mumbai2,612Bangalore765Chennai758Kolkata526Ahmedabad470Jaipur426Hyderabad416Pune214Chandigarh210Raipur166Indore154Rajkot148Surat133Amritsar114Patna87Visakhapatnam84Cochin78Guwahati75Nagpur74Lucknow64Jodhpur44Cuttack39Agra35Telangana34Allahabad33Dehradun33Karnataka30Panaji13Jabalpur7Orissa6SC6Calcutta4Ranchi4Kerala3Gauhati3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 14873Section 6860Section 153A58Addition to Income57Section 14743Section 143(3)42Section 25040Section 153D25Section 143(2)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 9/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

u/s. 68 of the Act to explain the alleged cash credits to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer and there being no further inquiry conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer means that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 13/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

18
Reassessment17
Reopening of Assessment14
Penalty11
25 Sept 2023
AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

u/s. 68 of the Act to explain the alleged cash credits to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer and there being no further inquiry conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer means that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition under section

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/GTY/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

147 is bad in law as it is a search and seizure case. Firstly, it is submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the registered office of the assessee company at Knowledge Hub, DN 23, 2nd floor, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091 on 20.09.2019 and pursuant to the said search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

147 is bad in law as it is a search and seizure case. Firstly, it is submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the registered office of the assessee company at Knowledge Hub, DN 23, 2nd floor, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091 on 20.09.2019 and pursuant to the said search

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

15-5-2012. At the time of search, assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the impugned assessment year ie. AY 2008-09 was in progress before the Ld. AO, Addl. CIT, Range-II, Bengaluru. According to the second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act, the pending assessment proceedings before the Addl. CIT, Range-II, Bengaluru

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 60/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 59/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made