BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi157Chennai113Bangalore64Mumbai62Hyderabad50Jaipur37Kolkata35Chandigarh21Rajkot20Surat19Amritsar12Indore10Ahmedabad10Agra10Nagpur6Lucknow3Dehradun3Jodhpur2Pune2Allahabad2Panaji1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)26Section 153A14Section 6812Addition to Income8Section 1327Section 1476Section 69C5Section 1483Section 132(4)3Penalty

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

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

ITA 441/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

2
Search & Seizure2
Undisclosed Income2

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

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

ITA 309/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

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

ITA 244/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

sections": [ "147", "133A", "139(1)", "143(3)", "143(2)", "148", "69C", "69A", "292C", "132(4A)", "65B(4)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 95/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

292C of the Act then the burden of proof lies with the Department which had not been discharged and thus the said third party departmental material / evidences first have to be proved to have some sort of live casual nexus with the undisclosed income of the appellant to sustain the addition under section 148 of the Act, especially when

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 94/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

292C of the Act then the burden of proof lies with the Department which had not been discharged and thus the said third party departmental material / evidences first have to be proved to have some sort of live casual nexus with the undisclosed income of the appellant to sustain the addition under section 148 of the Act, especially when

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

ITA 20/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 271D

292C will apply to AIDPL only and not to the assessee. Thus, the JCIT was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act simply of the basis of some loose papers/sheet found from third party premises. The JCIT in the page no. 3-5 of the penalty order has reproduced the said excel sheets. While analysing, the JCIT

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

ITA 283/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 271D

292C will apply to AIDPL only and not to the assessee. Thus, the JCIT was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act simply of the basis of some loose papers/sheet found from third party premises. The JCIT in the page no. 3-5 of the penalty order has reproduced the said excel sheets. While analysing, the JCIT

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 68/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

reassessment for six years shall be finalised by the Assessing Officer. It is also held by various Courts that once notice u/ s 153A of the Act issued, then assessment for six years shall be at large both for Assessing Officer and assessee have no warrant of law. It has been also held that in the assessment years where assessments

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 67/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

reassessment for six years shall be finalised by the Assessing Officer. It is also held by various Courts that once notice u/ s 153A of the Act issued, then assessment for six years shall be at large both for Assessing Officer and assessee have no warrant of law. It has been also held that in the assessment years where assessments