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.

20 results for “reassessment”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi433Mumbai326Chennai120Jaipur107Bangalore81Ahmedabad76Kolkata75Hyderabad65Raipur56Pune49Chandigarh38Allahabad30Cochin25Nagpur25Telangana25Indore20Lucknow18Agra12Rajkot12Cuttack11Panaji11Surat11Visakhapatnam10Ranchi9Dehradun9Amritsar5Patna4Guwahati4Jodhpur2Orissa2Rajasthan2SC2Uttarakhand1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14731Addition to Income17Disallowance15Section 143(3)12Section 14811Section 234B7Reassessment7Depreciation7Deduction6House Property

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

ITA 740/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

6
Section 275
Reopening of Assessment5
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jain, & Smt. Shreya JasinFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

160 (Cal), wherein it was held no addition case be made in the block assessment based on estimate. In view of above facts that the, adhoc disallowance is not bases on any material found during the course of search the at the claim of the assessee is not genuine, we hold the order of Ld CIT (A) to delete

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

reassessment can be initiated even if information may be obtained from record of original assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection, which is not permissible in law. In this regard we rely in the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the Apex

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 24/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

160/-, Rs. 24,05,275/- and Rs. 26,11,915/- respectively. However, the facts and figures relating to assessment year 2005-06 are discussed only, as facts are identical for all assessment years. 13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

160/-, Rs. 24,05,275/- and Rs. 26,11,915/- respectively. However, the facts and figures relating to assessment year 2005-06 are discussed only, as facts are identical for all assessment years. 13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 25/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

160/-, Rs. 24,05,275/- and Rs. 26,11,915/- respectively. However, the facts and figures relating to assessment year 2005-06 are discussed only, as facts are identical for all assessment years. 13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 26/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

160/-, Rs. 24,05,275/- and Rs. 26,11,915/- respectively. However, the facts and figures relating to assessment year 2005-06 are discussed only, as facts are identical for all assessment years. 13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 352/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

160/-, Rs. 24,05,275/- and Rs. 26,11,915/- respectively. However, the facts and figures relating to assessment year 2005-06 are discussed only, as facts are identical for all assessment years. 13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

160) (MP) have held that once the creditor has confirmed the transaction by owning the same, it is treated that the assesse has discharged his onus. After that it is for the Assessing Officer or department to verify the transaction in the hands of creditor. In this regard further, it is submitted by him that in the case of Sona

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

reassessment order. The only objection of the AO for making the impugned disallowance was non compliance of section 194C(7) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that section 194C(7) of the Act prescribes merely a procedural requirement requiring mechanical compliance, non compliance of which cannot trigger disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

M. P POLICE SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1), UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Ito 2(1), Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain 32Nd Battalion, Vs. Dewas Road Nagari, Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5551C Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 80P

section 143(3) rws 144B is without jurisdiction, bad in law and on facts and hence it is liable to be quashed. 11. That the reassessment order is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and in any case is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 12. That the Ld. CIT-(A) erred

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 651/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

ITA 331/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

ITA 895/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

reassessment proceedings after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years on the basis of certain information coming to his possession later on after obtaining approval from competent authority. Further, there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that the case cannot be reopened u/s 14B on the basis of information collected during

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.3.2016 after recording reasons and getting prior approval from the competent authority. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was served upon the assessee. Copy of the Smt. Sarita Bagdi return filed on 27.03.2012 declaring income of Rs.9,10,070/- was again filed in response to notice

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT-NFAC/2013- 14/10128987 dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page

THE ACIT 4 (1) , INDORE vs. SHRI LAKHAN LAL JAISWAL, INDORE

ITA 354/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Veena Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Singi, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

Section 148(2) giving a go bye to the mandatory provision of same to be provided to the assessee in order to enable the assessee to file objection against the reopening of assessment. 10. There is no independent application of mind by the Ld. AO. The satisfaction is a borrowed satisfaction. The assessee has not been given the opportunity

THE ACIT 4 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI LAKHAN LAL JAISWAL, INDORE

ITA 353/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Veena Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Singi, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

Section 148(2) giving a go bye to the mandatory provision of same to be provided to the assessee in order to enable the assessee to file objection against the reopening of assessment. 10. There is no independent application of mind by the Ld. AO. The satisfaction is a borrowed satisfaction. The assessee has not been given the opportunity