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.

10 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 145(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai484Delhi402Jaipur132Bangalore118Ahmedabad103Chandigarh73Raipur68Chennai64Kolkata63Rajkot54Surat42Pune32Hyderabad31Lucknow30Telangana26Agra20Nagpur19Jodhpur15Patna11Indore10Cuttack10Allahabad10Amritsar8Cochin7Visakhapatnam6Guwahati5Orissa2Panaji2SC1Varanasi1Dehradun1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)27Section 153A14Section 6813Section 143(2)10Section 1489Addition to Income9Section 1478Section 2635Section 69C

THE DCIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S VATIKA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 358/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Central)-I, M/S. Vatika Builders & Bhopal Developers, Vatika Parisar, बनाम/ Near Petrol Pump, Vs. Lalghati, Bhopal

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and will not be save even by section 292BB, even if the assessee participates in the proceedings. The Revenue can avail section 292BB only if notice u/s 143(2) was issued and not when admitted position is that no notice was issued as in the instant

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

4
Reopening of Assessment2
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

145(3) of the Act. 1(c). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on the allegation

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

145(3) of the Act. 1(c). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,56,52,000/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on the allegation

M/S CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicummins Technologies Acit Circle -1(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Industrial Area No.2 A.B. Vs. Road Industrial Area Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan K. Ved. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

reassessment order. Thus, he has submitted that the reopening is not valid and liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR has submitted that though the writ petition filed by the assesse challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court however, it was specifically observed while passing the order that anything observed

SHRI GANESH AGRAWAL,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal are allowed

ITA 612/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradheard Through Virtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

2. Subsequently, the notice u/s 147 was issued on the ground that the profit shown is not reliable and as per the information the net profit should be Rs.15,18,846/-. In response to notice u/s 147 it was submitted that the return filed earlier may be treated as a return filed in response to notice u/s 147. However

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

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

CHANDAN CHOUHAN,KHARGONE vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 210/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chandan Chouhan, Dcit, Ward No.24, Nfac Vs. Nath Gali, Delhi Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Auxpc9073A Assessee By Shri Ashok Surjan, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

2) and in not allowing opportunity to assessee to exercise his option for furnishing material of his choice in support of return of income, though the AO duly exercised his own option u/s 142(1) and thus exceeded in his action permitted by law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal which confirms the action of AO wherein

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

147. The re-opening is bad in law and hence the assessment be annulled. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of capital gains for sale of the house. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) further erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F and 54EC. The same