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.

28 results for “reassessment”+ Section 196clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai303Delhi293Bangalore99Jaipur62Ahmedabad53Chandigarh53Raipur40Guwahati40Chennai34Kolkata28Amritsar24Indore22Cuttack21Hyderabad15Lucknow13Pune12Surat11Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam6Agra6Patna5Nagpur4Telangana4Cochin4Rajkot3Karnataka2Rajasthan1Ranchi1SC1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26336Section 14830Section 143(3)28Section 10(38)24Section 14718Addition to Income15Section 6813Bogus/Accommodation Entry13Capital Gains10

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

196) : "Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income as these are exempt under various provisions of the Act. There have been cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of such ITA Nos.1983&1984/Kol/2014-Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. A.Y.2008-09& 2009-10 6 exempt income. This in effect means that the tax incentive given by way of exemptions

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

Long Term Capital Gains10
Section 133(6)8
Exemption8

URMILA GARG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 47(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1734/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Urmila Garg…………………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Flat No.402, 138 Block-A, 4Th Floor, Gt Road, Howrah - 711102.. [Pan: Adapg1577B] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata..…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reassessment proceedings as invalid and void ab initio.” 5. The ld. AR challenges that impugned order on the legal ground that the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 01.04.2021 without adhering to the newly inserted provisions of section 148 r.w.s 148A hence the entire assessment proceedings are bad-in-law and the same liable

BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.160/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.........................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaecb0141J] Vs. Pcit (Central), Asansol......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessment In This Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act To Verify The Transactions Of The Assessee With The Party M/S Siddhi Enterprises Due To Discrepancy Found In The Accounts. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchases Made From M/S Siddhi Enterprises. However, He Further Noted That The Assessee Not Only Had Shown Such Purchases In The Books Of Account But Also Had Recorded Corresponding Sales Thereto. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Held That Since The

Section 147Section 263

reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 for the impugned AY vide order dated 30/01/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with estimated addition of 12.5% on account of certain alleged bogus purchases. While estimating the same, Ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451. 4. However, subsequently

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

reassess’ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

reassessment proceedings for reopening the case U/S 147/148 of the Act which was disposed off vide letter dtd. 06112/2019. Another notice U/S 142(1) of the Act issued on 06.12.2019 in terms of section 129 of the Act. But assessee, not filed any documents as requisitioned uls 142(1) of the Act on 06.12.2019 on the date fixed for furnishing

KAMAL SINGH KUNDALIA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2359/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Kamal Sinigh Kundalia V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Pradip Lakhotia, 2Nd Ward-1(4), Aayakar Floor, Metro Plaza, Sf Bhawana, Matigara, Road, Siliguri-734005 Siliguri-734010 [Pan No.Akupk 1029 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl-Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 29.08.2017 Passed In Case No.49/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S Detailed Paper Book Comprising Of Bank Statement (For The Period Of 01.04.2011 To 31.03.2012), Share Certificate In This Taxpayer’S Name Dated 31.12.2011, Allotment Letter Of 15,000 Shares Of Cressanda Solutions After Due Approval Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court Dated 21.02.2013, Show-Cause Notice, Demat Account With The Broker Firm & Contract Notes Etc.; Stands Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 68

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had purchased 30000 shares of A at the rate between Rs.2.50 and Rs.3.40 per share, in the month of April, 1997, and out of those shares, he sold 24000 shares through a broker. The Assessing Officer came to the opinion that the value of the shares could not be as high

M/S. RKR GRAPHITE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

196 (Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain v. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta), the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law and the same are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and proceeding will not debar the respondent- authority concerned

RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata. C/O, P. K. Himatsinghka & Co. 41, B. B. Ganguly Vs. Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. (Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Himatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 250Section 68

reassessment proceeding. In compliance to the notice, assessee filed and submitted various documents before the AO. During the assessment proceeding, Ld. AO noticed that assessee has received Rs.22,00,029/- from M/s. Kamalraj Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. during 3 Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd., AY 2017-18 the FY 2016-17 and it also found from the data of MCA that

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1133/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue as discussed above.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The ITAT Kolkata “B” Bench in the case of Om Foregoing & Engineering P Ltd. vs. PCIT

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1129/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue as discussed above.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The ITAT Kolkata “B” Bench in the case of Om Foregoing & Engineering P Ltd. vs. PCIT

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1130/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue as discussed above.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The ITAT Kolkata “B” Bench in the case of Om Foregoing & Engineering P Ltd. vs. PCIT

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1131/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue as discussed above.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The ITAT Kolkata “B” Bench in the case of Om Foregoing & Engineering P Ltd. vs. PCIT

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1132/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue as discussed above.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The ITAT Kolkata “B” Bench in the case of Om Foregoing & Engineering P Ltd. vs. PCIT

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

196 ITR 406 (Bom) and Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd, vs. CIT [1994] 73 Taxman 555 (Cal.): Income Tax Reference No. 113 Of 1983 have also taken the similar views and held that interest u/s 201(1A) is not deductible as business expenditure under section 37. Both these decisions find a place

ANUP HIRAWAT,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1522/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1522/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Anup Hirawat Vs. Ito, Ward – 34(2), Kolkata Hirawat Brothers, Shop No. 5-6, 196 Old Chaina Bazar Street, Kolkata-700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abuph 4071 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

196 Old Chaina Bazar Street, Kolkata-700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPH 4071 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year

DCIT,CIR-11, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,,CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 288ASection 80I

196/- As discussed above 2.Disallowance of claim of Deduction u/s 80IC Rs.7,41,46,812/- 2. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 88,41,000/- Rs.9,05,20,008/- Total Income as Assessed Rs.25,22,26,698/- Rounded off u/s288A Rs.25,22,26,700/- 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A)challenging the addition made in the order passed

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming to such a decision we rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shantai Exim

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision