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.

21 results for “reassessment”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi523Mumbai461Bangalore243Chennai149Jaipur134Hyderabad122Ahmedabad92Chandigarh75Surat52Raipur50Amritsar47Indore33Guwahati33Telangana28Lucknow27Allahabad25Pune23Kolkata21Visakhapatnam20Cochin20Cuttack10Agra8Patna7Rajkot6Karnataka6Nagpur4Orissa3Rajasthan3SC3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Varanasi2Uttarakhand1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)26Section 14824Section 14723Section 15416Addition to Income16Section 153A10Section 14A8Section 2507Section 148(2)7Disallowance

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

Section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee company, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are clearly wrong and insufficient . We are urged to quash the reassessment

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

6
Reopening of Assessment6
Reassessment6

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Ghosh, FCA & Shri Piyush Dey,FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee company, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are clearly 9 Allahabad Bank A.Yr.2003-04 wrong and insufficient . We are urged to quash the reassessment

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of assessee is allowed

ITA 638/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 148

115 ITR 876 wherein it was held that when reassessment proceedings commence following the issue of a notice under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

reassessment proceedings was bad in law as it did not satisfy the condition precedent in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 18. We also find merit in the alternate contention made by the Ld. AR that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2016 without first forming reasons to believe that income

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 654/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

section 115 BBE of the Act at the higher rate.” 4.3. Subsequently, case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by recording the reasons to believe that based on information received through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) module assessee had sold shares of penny stock having scrips named Appu Marketing & Manufacturing Ltd. (AMML), currently known

A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-51, KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA ENGINEERING, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2442/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 148Section 194CSection 40

115 054 [PAN No.AAIFM 7800L] M/s Maa Engineering, V/s. ACIT, Circle-51, Block- 37,BT Road, DS-2&3, Maniktala Civic P.O.Sukhchar, 24- Centre, Uttarapan Parganss (North) Complex, Kolkata-54 अपीलाथ" /Appellant/Cross .. ""यथ"/Respondent Objector Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue आवेदक क" ओर से/By assessee Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate सुनवाई

SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 72Section 73

reassess” to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one aseessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

DCIT,CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 72Section 73

reassess” to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one aseessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

R S ISPAT LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

115/-. The AO also separately added sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s Maa Amba Towers Limited by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by this reassessment order dated 14.12.2018, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 7. Simultaneously, the assessee is noted to have filed a rectification application

DAULAL KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1065/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Daulal Kothari -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aiypk 2894 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

section 50C of the Act) was Rs. 17,28,634/- (10,22,519 + 7,06,115). On objection of the adoption of this value by the assessee, the ld. AO referred the matter to Assistant Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Jodhpur who valued the property and accordingly, the long term capital gain of the subject mentioned properties was worked

M/S WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 18.11.2011. 2. We find that the assessee has raised two additional grounds before us vide Additional Ground no.7 and 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that Additional Ground no.7 is not pressed

M/S. SHREE HANUMAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/KOL/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

section 115JA. Therefore, the AO cannot modify such order u/s. 154 of the Act. 13. In reply, the Ld. DR submits the limitation is saved to rectify the order and the revenue has an opportunity to rectify the order u/s. 154 of the Act. The AO did not take into consideration the computation u/s. 115JA from the first instance onwards

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

115 to 120 of Paper Book) d) In the case of Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. (page

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

115 to 120 of Paper Book) d) In the case of Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. (page

M/S TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S BHATPARA PAPERS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1052/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50(2)

115 Less: Net Selling 3,45,660 Expenses Aggregate Capital Loss 9,65,11,775 12. In view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that seen from any angle, the computation of short-term capital loss of Rs.9,65,11,775/- as determined by the appellant was as per law. Even otherwise and for the reasons discussed

SURRENDRA KUMAR GOENKA,HOWRAH vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., WARD 61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 5Section 90

115) before filing revised tax return on 23rd February, 2021. vi) The assessee has a copy of his Employment letter in relation to his Netherlands assignment period and passport for his Indian residency (at page no. 116 to 125) for ready reference. 7. We have gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the appeal

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

115-119. 3.1.1 It is submitted that the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court are not applicable in this case for the following reasons. (i) The said Judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was delivered on 17th July 1989 by Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

M/S STHIRLAKSHMI MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

ITA 78/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble) [Virtual Court Hearing] Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Sthirlakshmi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd........................................................……………….............Appellant 85, Netaji Subhas Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadcs 6971 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(1), Kolkata………….........….……....….....................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Saran Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 29Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 5Th, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 68

115/-. The Assessing Officer completed best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and determined the total income of the company at Rs.10,00,30,420/- interalia making addition of Rs.9,90,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being share capital received along with share premium and disallowance of Rs.9,46,300/- u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee

ARPAN NAYAK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 292

Section 292(B) of the Act for the reasons that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings without raising any objection to non- issuance of reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. 4. In defence of this argument, Ld. A/R relied on the decision of Coordinate Benches in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Pallavi Vijen Jhaveri

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SATTVA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2418/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

115-WE(3) and the total income was computed at Rs.1,50,88,600/-(copy given in the Paper Book). The said Total Income inter alia included income from House Property of Rs. 2,46,23,873/-.” 4.1. The reasons for re-opening are given in page-1 & 2 of the assessment order which is extracted for ready reference