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 142A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh36Delhi14Mumbai9Jaipur8Raipur6Nagpur6Surat5Pune5Lucknow5Ahmedabad4Patna4Bangalore4Agra2Chennai2Kolkata2Hyderabad1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14421Section 143(3)17Addition to Income8Section 1486Section 1474Section 153A4Section 142(1)4Section 50C3Natural Justice

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69
3
Section 2502
Unexplained Investment2
Reopening of Assessment2

u/s 147 - Once the AO came to the conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he had entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, was found to have been explained, his jurisdiction came to a stop at that, and he did not continue to possess jurisdiction, to put to tax, any other income, which subsequently came

SHAILESH GOYAL,TONK vs. ACIT, CENTRE CIRCLE JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

reassessment or recomputation is made under\nsub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 orsection 153A or clause (c)\nof section 158BC unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and\nthe approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner\nor Commissioner, Principal Director General or Director General

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

147 have already been passed for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 even before concluding appellate proceedings (and were available on E-filing of Income Tax Department itself), which fact was duly communicated to Id.CIT(A) vide submission dated 8.7.23. Appellant prays that such action of Id. CIT(A) is also absolutely arbitrary and order so passed deserves

ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

reassessment proceedings under sec. 147 of Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. (1) above, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of payments on account of (1) Rs.17,450/- paid extra for enhanced DLC value of registration charges, (2) capital expenses of Rs.15,71,149 (4,06,963/-+Rs.11,64,186/-) incurred for vacating sold land from

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 440/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing\nOfficer\"\n\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 438/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 151/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

1) Rs.2,03,500/- (2) Rs.4,53,000/- (3) Rs.51,038/- (4) Rs.1,11,420/- Rs.8,18,958 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee, while filing the return of income for AY 2020-21, has taken into consideration the above papers of undisclosed sales. It is on account of such papers and other discrepancies