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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi74Jaipur31Mumbai30Chennai29Bangalore28Hyderabad25Indore13Ahmedabad13Pune12Kolkata12Patna9Chandigarh9Nagpur9Raipur8Agra8Visakhapatnam7Lucknow7Jodhpur6Karnataka2Amritsar2Rajkot2Surat2Telangana1Ranchi1Dehradun1Cochin1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14729Section 26318Section 143(3)17Section 14814Section 54F12Addition to Income11Section 69A8Section 547Reassessment6Section 143(2)

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

ITA 511/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 54F

Section 54F of the Act is no more in dispute as the assessee has offered it to tax in the Income Tax Return filed for Shri Sarwar Mohd. Khan Assessment Year 2011-12. In the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN

4
Exemption4
Unexplained Money4

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 281/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 54F

54F considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice. Page 3 of 29 ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17 4. The above grounds raised by both sides are qua the validity/invalidity of assessment as also on merits of addition. We would first take-up the validity/invalidity

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act should be accepted. 23. Therefore, in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 238/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 122/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 239/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

reassess the total income of an assessee. We also find that the expression ‘total income’ has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression ‘total income’ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion

PRADEEP KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. CIT-I INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 531/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradeep Khandelwal, Pr. Cit (1), बनाम/ 196,Bajrang Nagar, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Akppk2676R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 54F

54F of the I. T. Act, 1961, was allowed without examining the conditions for allowance of the same.” 4. The assessee has filed copy of re-assessment order dated 19.12.2016. On perusal of same, it is found that the re-assessment was confined to contravention of section 40A(3) and the exemption u/s 54/54F was not a subject-matter

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

reassessment proceedings are invalid but just for academic purpose we will adjudicate Ground No.1 & 2 relating to the merits of the case. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,50,74,858/- observing as follows; “5. Ground Nos. 2 & 3:- The above grounds are directed against the rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F

LATE VINAYAK PURANIK THROUGH LEGAL HEIR YASH PURANIK,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 911/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilate Vinayak Puranik Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Through L/H Yash 3(2), Vs. Puranik, Indore 7/4, New Palasia, Indore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253Section 54FSection 68

54F and 54EC. The same may kindly be allowed and the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as capital gain may please be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of rs. 30,25,000/- in account of fixed deposits treating the same as unexplained. 3.1 It was proved before the lower authorities that