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.

69 results for “reassessment”+ Section 127(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi745Mumbai367Jaipur172Bangalore161Chandigarh109Hyderabad81Kolkata69Raipur67Chennai63Ahmedabad49Nagpur38Patna37Lucknow32Telangana28Pune27Rajkot27Indore26Jodhpur19Ranchi18Surat15Visakhapatnam12Cuttack10Guwahati10Agra10Dehradun10Amritsar9Karnataka8Cochin7SC6Allahabad4Orissa3Rajasthan2Calcutta2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14898Section 14792Section 143(3)86Section 26357Section 6850Addition to Income46Section 143(2)41Reopening of Assessment25Section 25024

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2484/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

4 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. escaped assessment and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, reopening the and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, reopening the and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, reopening the assessment. He relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the original

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

Section 133(6)24
Disallowance16
Bogus/Accommodation Entry14

TRIPURARI SINGH.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 46,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

4), Kolkata. The assessee claimed that in such circumstances, in both the years the reopening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel

TRIPURARI SINGH.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O WD- 46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 315/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

4), Kolkata. The assessee claimed that in such circumstances, in both the years the reopening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel

I.T.O,WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 434/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

4), Kolkata. The assessee claimed that in such circumstances, in both the years the reopening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel

I.T.O, WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

4), Kolkata. The assessee claimed that in such circumstances, in both the years the reopening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

Section 14ASection 250Section 68

reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Now, "Assessing Officer" is defined in section 2(7A), as follows: 2(7A) "Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions I.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2008-09 M/s BPO Finance

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

4), Jalpaiguri who is the jurisdictional AO however the assessment in this case was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri . We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to ACIT and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section 127(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. The case

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

4), Jalpaiguri who is the jurisdictional AO however the assessment in this case was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri . We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to ACIT and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section 127(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. The case

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

127 of the Act. However for the year under consideration a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO of ward 3(1) for scrutiny assessment. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice on the ground that the jurisdiction on the assessee vests with the ITO of ward 56(4). On bringing this anomaly

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

127 of the Act. However for the year under consideration a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO of ward 3(1) for scrutiny assessment. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice on the ground that the jurisdiction on the assessee vests with the ITO of ward 56(4). On bringing this anomaly

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

4 I.T.A. No.464/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smita Biswas by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kusum Goyal (supra)the relevant extracts of the High Court are extracted below: “It is evident that the respondent no. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

4)(b), assuming he was, then for him to take charge as AO, there is necessary of an order u/s 127 for transfer of jurisdiction from DCIT to Addl CIT. The High Court heard the matter and allowed the appeal of the Revenue and sent the matter back to file of the Tribunal for adjudication of merits. 7. In Jaswantlal

M/S. STL OVERSEAS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stl Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, 12, Vs. Amartolla Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aadcs 5333 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Swatee Baid, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 149

4 M/s. STL Overseas Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 Explanation – In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Abc India Limited Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 40/8, Ballygunj Circular Road Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

4. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the income as per the return of income was nil and therefore the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) in terms of CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011 is with ITO and not with the DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata, who has issued notice

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 243/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1951 (43 of 1961) and all other powers enabling me in this behalf. 1. Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT & TP), Ahmedabad hereby transfer the case (s), particulars of which are mentioned in column No. 2 and 3 of the schedule hereunder, from the jurisdiction of the officer mentioned in column No. 4

JAYA BOTHRA,PURBA BARDDHAMAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1632/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

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

127 of the Act and the impugned inaction on that account renders the assessment order framed ab initio void, ultra vires and null in law.” 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additional ground being legal in nature relates to the validity of the assessment framed by ld. Assessing Officer (in short

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2566/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 73

127/- - Rs.60,332/ - ) will be carried forward accordingly. Thereafter, according to the AO, as the loss of 3 Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. AY 2008-09 Rs.62,55,38,795/- from the purchase and sale of share as well as derivative transactions has been considered under the head 'Speculative Loss' in pursuance of Explanation to the section

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 821/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

127 of the Act, notice under section 142(1) was issued by the Ld. ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata issued requiring the assesses to furnish response to various queries raised therein. 4. 05.10.2017 Reminder to the earlier notices issued on 31.03.2017 and 07.08.2017 was issued by the Id. ITO. Ward-I2(i), Kolkata. 5. 17.10.2017 Returned filed in compliance

M/S INDOVISION COMMODITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 500/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassessment is liable to be quashed. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in adding back Rs. 26,18,726/- received from M/s Abhiman Distributors to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 when no enquiry worth name was made from the party or any verification done from the assessment record

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

reassessment made by the Ld. AO by ignoring the\nfact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of\nassessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in\nthe case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003]\n259 ITR 19 (SC).\n3. 1. The facts of the case have been discussed while