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.

5 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 245clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi347Mumbai194Chennai94Bangalore91Kolkata36Jaipur33Chandigarh23Ahmedabad23Lucknow20Raipur20Guwahati18Nagpur17Allahabad17Rajkot16Hyderabad12Pune11Jodhpur10Surat8Amritsar6Indore5Dehradun4Panaji2Patna2Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Condonation of Delay4Section 40A(3)3Section 40a3Section 373Penalty3Disallowance3Section 153A

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 216/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

245/- during the year ended 31st March, 2010 to Rs. 1,51,31,945/- during the year ended 31st March, 2011. Hence, there was additional burden of Rs. 2,50,89,822/- on account of depreciation and finance charges which was debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee which resulted in the figure of loss being declared

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 232/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2
Bench:
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

245/- during the year ended 31st March, 2010 to Rs. 1,51,31,945/- during the year ended 31st March, 2011. Hence, there was additional burden of Rs. 2,50,89,822/- on account of depreciation and finance charges which was debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee which resulted in the figure of loss being declared

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

ITA 217/IND/2021[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

245/- during the year ended 31st March, 2010 to Rs. 1,51,31,945/- during the year ended 31st March, 2011. Hence, there was additional burden of Rs. 2,50,89,822/- on account of depreciation and finance charges which was debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee which resulted in the figure of loss being declared

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

245, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the incriminating material in the form of random sheets, loose papers, computer prints, hard disk and pen drive etc. are inadmissible in evidence. IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Vivek Agarwal

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 40/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment in pursuance thereof u/s. 147 of the Act, merely on guess work, conjectures and surmises, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, improper, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in determining the total income