Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

15 results for “reassessment”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,745 Delhi2,373 Chennai1,068 Bangalore811 Kolkata680 Jaipur595 Ahmedabad499 Hyderabad367 Pune320 Surat253 Chandigarh223 Indore198 Raipur161 Amritsar155 Visakhapatnam143 Cochin140 Cuttack139 Rajkot107 Nagpur87 Karnataka81 Lucknow72 Agra62 Guwahati60 Jodhpur48 Patna46 Allahabad46 Ranchi36 Telangana25 Dehradun21 Panaji17 Jabalpur15 SC13 Calcutta10 Kerala9 Punjab & Haryana5 Varanasi4 Orissa4 Gauhati2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25 Section 26316 Section 14712 Addition to Income12 Disallowance10 Section 36(1)(viia)9 Section 271(1)(c)9 Reassessment8 Section 1487 Section 37(1)

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 6/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment (ITA No. 153/Jab/2013), raises a single issue, being the disallowance of commission expenditure, claimed at Rs. 1,82,656, and supposedly

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 153/JAB/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

6

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment (ITA No. 153/Jab/2013), raises a single issue, being the disallowance of commission expenditure, claimed at Rs. 1,82,656, and supposedly

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 224/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 184Section 40

reassessed at Rs.12,81,445 (Rs.12,81,450) by disallowing interest (Rs.1,98,930) 1 Varhsma Engineers’ Group v. Asst

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance

SMT. ASHA YADAV,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 89/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

Section 147Section 194Section 263Section 40

disallowance made out of development charges, which is not the subject matter of the reasons. 11. In such a case, the settled legal position is that the AO has to restrict the addition in assessment or reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed, assessing the income (under the regular provisions) at (-) Rs.1,06,68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Sh. Ghai would before us further add that s. 194C(7) is even otherwise independent of s. 194C(6). 5.3 The same, however, did not find acceptance by the ld. Pr. CIT; the operative part of the impugned order reading as under: „5. The assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

ITA 66/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 44A

disallowance out of above expenses without any reason. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 47,16,784/ is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.’ Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find the Revenue’s entire case as much ado about

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 175/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Moughale, D.R

Section 147Section 148

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Moughale, D.R

Section 147Section 148

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48