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 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi380Mumbai93Bangalore89Chennai87Jaipur78Chandigarh61Amritsar42Nagpur33Pune27Hyderabad24Allahabad20Patna17Raipur16Lucknow12Agra11Guwahati7Visakhapatnam6Cuttack6Ahmedabad5Kolkata4Indore4Cochin3Karnataka2Jodhpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 153A32Section 153D25Section 13212Section 153C7Addition to Income7Section 143(2)6Long Term Capital Gains5Section 682Unexplained Cash Credit

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 309/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

2

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 110/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Malhotra, FCAFor Respondent: Soumendu Sekhar Das, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

147 / 148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 10. Thus, from a perusal of record, it is clear that the aggregate addition of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- for the impugned assessment year, made by the AO, pertaining to the purported unexplained credits received by the appellant for the captioned assessment year was not based on any incriminating