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.

15 results for “reassessment”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune18Jaipur15Delhi12Mumbai12Indore7Ahmedabad5Surat3Bangalore3Kolkata3Lucknow3Amritsar2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271D21Section 143(3)18Section 271E17Section 153A13Section 269S11Addition to Income10Section 40A(3)9Penalty7Section 695Section 127

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

5
Business Income5
Unexplained Investment5
ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who received advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the 10 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal same from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com 573 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 794 (SC) [04-0... INCOME TAX: Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned High Court order that where Assessing Officer made additions under section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 498/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

269T of the Act by the loanee (who\nreceived advance from appellant). The learned AO is directed to examine the\n\nsame from the perspective of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a\nreference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner.\n\nIn the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby\ntreated

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

269T in contravention to its provisions. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271E

269T of the Act by receiving unsecured loans in cash and payment thereof in cash. According to the AO, the assesse failed to explain the sources of cash deposit of Rs.2,60,000/- because before taking unsecured loans the income of the borrower should be considered whether he has income for repayment of unsecured loans. According

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 160/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

reassessment can be made U/s 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Therefore, what is the relevant to determine in the instant case is whether any incriminating document was found during the course of search in the case of the assessee and basis which the additions have been made

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 159/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

reassessment can be made U/s 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Therefore, what is the relevant to determine in the instant case is whether any incriminating document was found during the course of search in the case of the assessee and basis which the additions have been made

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 158/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

reassessment can be made U/s 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Therefore, what is the relevant to determine in the instant case is whether any incriminating document was found during the course of search in the case of the assessee and basis which the additions have been made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

Reassessment was initiated only on the basis of opinion arrived at by AD at M, hence invalid. (ii) CIT vs. SHIV RATAN SONI (2008) 217 CTR 222 Rajasthan HC (Annexure 11) Conclusion arrived at by the AO for issuing notice under s. 148 is not his own but is a borrowed satisfaction held by the Asstt. CIT while making