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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 201(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi574Mumbai341Bangalore282Chennai200Jaipur110Ahmedabad94Kolkata53Chandigarh44Pune35Visakhapatnam34Cuttack31Rajkot29Raipur28Cochin24Hyderabad23Amritsar19Jodhpur17Surat12Patna12Lucknow12Indore11Dehradun8Karnataka7Guwahati5Nagpur5Panaji4Allahabad3SC3Telangana3Agra2Uttarakhand1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 14713Section 153A10Addition to Income10Section 1488Section 2636Reassessment5Disallowance5Reopening of Assessment5Section 143(2)

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

4
Section 142(1)4
Section 1324

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 208/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 271A

201 1-12 to 2017-18 j Shri Gurumukhdas Constractors Pvt. Ltd. 4 AAKPV6009J 153A 2011-12 to 2017- 18 Suresh Vaswani 5 Sushil Vaswani AAKPV5987D 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 4. It should be ensured that the final assessment orders are passed and served on the assessees well in time. A copy of the final assessment orders should

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PHALODI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NERSIGARH, NERSIGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 201Section 40

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.01.2013 and after considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.11,77,515/- for lower deduction of tax on machinery hire charges. Income was reassessed at Rs.74,98,678/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 5. Now the revenue

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 501/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)

reassessment proceedings initiated in his case. It was only when the notice of Penalty was received that he got to know about the closed assessment proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the income tax act, 1961. The appeal is preferred along with the appeal for the penalty proceedings, and this shows that the appellant was unaware

THE DY CIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPASL vs. M/S R.K.GUPTA & ENGINEERS P LTD, 2009-10

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47Section 80I

201-. 2.1. Thereafter the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 27.08.2013 on the ground that the A.O. found the stock in the books of account as on 31.03.2009 was Rs. 15,00,000/- whereas in the stock statement submitted to the bank the assessee shown a stock

SUNAYANA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunayana Investment Company Pcit-1, Ltd, Indore Part-B Of 417 Chetak Centre Annex, Vs. R.N.T. Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaucs5765M Assessee By Shri Sohit Gupta & Ms. Alifiya Ali, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Section 263 of the Act on two issues i.e. the accommodation entries received from Shri Jignesh Shah & Sanjay Shah as well as a new issue regarding the accommodation entries taken by the assessee of Rs.5,00,000/- taken from M/s Orange Mist Production Pvt. Ltd . The AR has pointed out that the second issue as taken up by the PCIT

M/S RAJSHREE FIBERS,,KHARGONE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 567/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit M/S. Rajshree Fibers Khandwa Bistan Road बनाम/ Khargone (M.P.) Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aahfr4352B Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Rajshree Fibers Acit Bistan Road Khandwa बनाम/ Khargone (M.P.) Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue )

Section 147

3 [ITA Nos.550 & 567/Ind/2017] [M/s. Rajshree Fibers, Khargone (M.P.)] in law being based upon purely on the report by the DDIT (Inv.). Ld. CIT(DR) Ms. Ashima Gupta vehemently argued that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct. Ld. D.R. submitted that as per section 147 of the Act, the A.O. would be well within the ambit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJSHREE FIBERS, , KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 550/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit M/S. Rajshree Fibers Khandwa Bistan Road बनाम/ Khargone (M.P.) Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aahfr4352B Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Rajshree Fibers Acit Bistan Road Khandwa बनाम/ Khargone (M.P.) Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue )

Section 147

3 [ITA Nos.550 & 567/Ind/2017] [M/s. Rajshree Fibers, Khargone (M.P.)] in law being based upon purely on the report by the DDIT (Inv.). Ld. CIT(DR) Ms. Ashima Gupta vehemently argued that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct. Ld. D.R. submitted that as per section 147 of the Act, the A.O. would be well within the ambit