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.

302 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,741Delhi1,280Chennai547Bangalore504Jaipur437Ahmedabad368Hyderabad310Kolkata302Pune218Chandigarh165Indore129Raipur107Visakhapatnam95Surat91Rajkot86Cochin77Amritsar65Cuttack58Nagpur53Lucknow51Patna41Guwahati38Jodhpur34Telangana30Karnataka26Dehradun22Agra18Allahabad16Ranchi7SC6Panaji6Kerala6Jabalpur6Varanasi3Orissa2Calcutta1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 147227Section 148157Section 143(3)145Section 26369Addition to Income63Reopening of Assessment52Reassessment51Section 6845Deduction

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

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 u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee also challenged

Showing 1–20 of 302 · Page 1 of 16

...
42
Section 143(2)31
Section 80I31
Disallowance29

D.C.I.T CC - XIII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRACTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 69/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reassess the total income in respect of each asst year falling within such six years, the said assessments have to be framed as per law and only such receipt which can be legally includible can be brought to taxation. Since the retention money is taxable only in the year of release by respective authorities as per judicial decisions referred earlier

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 990/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The action of the AO to reopen an assessment completed earlier u/s. 143(3) of the Act without any tangible material ought not to have been done. We note that the AO has done the reopening and consequent reassessment on the basis of the very same material which was before the earlier

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of the escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before the Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 279/KOL/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 on 10.09.2010 on the same reasons as stated in the present case that Assessee Company was merely a contractor and, therefore, would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. However, this Tribunal in that case for AY 2006-07 held that the assessee company was developing

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INTRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 285/KOL/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 on 10.09.2010 on the same reasons as stated in the present case that Assessee Company was merely a contractor and, therefore, would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. However, this Tribunal in that case for AY 2006-07 held that the assessee company was developing

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 606/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 607/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 608/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

QUALITY BAGS EXPORTERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2787/KOL/2013[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 28Section 80H

u/s 143(3)1 147. In the reassessment so framed, the Ld. AG. made a disallowance of Rs. 14,27,543/- in respect of deduction

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2261/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, therefore, the impugned action of AO to reopen on the same materials before 6 TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd, AY 2008-09 him is akin to review of the earlier AO’s order which power he does not enjoy. This action of the AO to reopen based on the reasons recorded, supra, is nothing

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

deduction under section 80-IB in the assessment years in question, it was their mistake. All information regarding the alleged manufacturing process of the assessee was before them. After the time limit for making assessment or reassessment has long expired, the Revenue cannot turn round, take recourse to an extraordinary provision which is section 147 and attempt to reopen concluded

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

deduction of Rs. 19.51. As such, there was no under assessment of income. 5. It was further submitted that the said fact of fire breaking out in Dankuni Unit and loss of Rs.26.69 crores, being claim not received by the assessee from the Insurance Company was duly mentioned in the financial statements and the same was duly perused and examined

ACIT, C.C. XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KANCHAN OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as being withdrawn

ITA 725/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 725/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09 Acit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 1390, 1391 & 1553/Kol/2010 A.Ys 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08 Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos. 106, 107 & 140/Kol/2010 [ A/O Ita Nos.1390, 1391& 1553/Kol/2010 Ays. ’03-04, ’04-05& ’07-08] For The Appellant/Department: None Appeared For The Respondent/Assessee : Shria.K Tibrewal, Fca

For Appellant: ShriA.K Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

deduction u/s 80IB of the Act needs to be looked into only in the initial assessment year and thereafter it is automatic and hence becomes academic in nature. 6.2. We find that the Learned AR had filed a letter dated 23.11.2015 withdrawing all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. In view of the same, the Cross Objections

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 263

deducted and deposited with the Govt. Treasury. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was framed vide order dated 18.1.2013 assessing the income at Rs. 23,86,168/- by making addition in respect of four disallowance namely: i) Disallowance of artist remuneration ii) Disallowance of studio hire charges iii) Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

u/s 147 and 154 of the Act which is not permitted in the eyes of law. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgement of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd versus ACIT reported in 322 ITR 369(Cal). The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below. “If the Assessing

G. S. ATWAL & CO. (ENGG.) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

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

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the reopening is not as per the provisions of law. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of engineering and contracts. The assessee for the year under consideration files its return of income dated 07.10.2007 disclosing

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide his order dated 24.12.2010 and disallowed the claim of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act and also excluded the receipts of EMA from exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who deleted the addition and allowed exemption u/s. 10B of the Act but confirmed

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1613/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(1)Section 72

u/s 147. Thus, reopening was held to be invalid on this ground itself. 12. In the present case, it has already been discussed that admitted facts are that there was no fresh material coming into the possession of the AO, at the time of recording of the ‘Reasons’. These facts have not been rebutted by Ld DR also. Thus

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1728/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which