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.

11 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,474Delhi1,353Chennai617Bangalore486Jaipur442Kolkata416Ahmedabad366Hyderabad260Pune227Surat177Chandigarh172Indore144Raipur138Visakhapatnam93Amritsar83Cuttack79Cochin76Rajkot67Lucknow57Nagpur55Guwahati49Allahabad38Agra33Jodhpur33Patna28Panaji17Karnataka17Jabalpur11Dehradun8Calcutta5Telangana5Kerala4Ranchi3Varanasi3SC2Gauhati2Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25Section 14711Section 2639Section 271(1)(c)9Reassessment8Addition to Income8Section 1487Section 80I6Disallowance

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

147 despite of the fact findi ngs recorded by A.O. in 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

6
Section 44A5
Penalty5
Section 271(1)(b)4

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

147 despite of the fact findi ngs recorded by A.O. in 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

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

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

u/s. 147 and, accordingly, penalty levied at Rs. 60, 275. The assessee filed appeal against both these orders as well. The quantum appeals were taken up together for hearing by the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A), as explained by Sh. Usrethe, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, observing two appeals for the same year, which were

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)

u/s. 147 and, accordingly, penalty levied at Rs. 60, 275. The assessee filed appeal against both these orders as well. The quantum appeals were taken up together for hearing by the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A), as explained by Sh. Usrethe, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, observing two appeals for the same year, which were

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

147 of the Act, the power of revision under section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact, section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show-cause notice to be served on the assessee. Rather, what is required under the provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee

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

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

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 16/06/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm in contract business, was assessed at a total income of Rs.6,19,810 for the relevant year vide assessment u/s

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

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

147 read with section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being

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

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