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.

8 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi48Mumbai22Bangalore22Chennai22Jaipur14Hyderabad14Kolkata9Patna8Raipur8Indore8Ahmedabad8Lucknow6Visakhapatnam5Agra4Jodhpur4Chandigarh2Karnataka2Pune2Dehradun1Nagpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 14727Section 26318Section 14810Section 143(3)8Section 69A8Section 547Addition to Income6Reassessment6Section 54F4

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 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount

Unexplained Money4
Cash Deposit4
Section 143(2)3

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 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount

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 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount

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 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 has been considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "On perusal of the assessment order and case records, it is noticed that the assesses made cash deposits of amount of Rs.43,91,275/- and claimed this amount

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

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

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 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

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