Search: reassessment u/s 147 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

169 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai982 Delhi689 Chennai355 Bangalore332 Jaipur217 Ahmedabad203 Kolkata169 Hyderabad131 Pune109 Chandigarh107 Raipur100 Indore85 Rajkot58 Lucknow49 Guwahati42 Surat42 Cochin40 Patna36 Visakhapatnam33 Nagpur29 Cuttack22 Amritsar18 Jodhpur17 Agra13 Allahabad12 Dehradun11 Karnataka11 Telangana4 Varanasi4 Jabalpur3 SC3 Panaji2 Ranchi2 Himachal Pradesh2 Gauhati2 Punjab & Haryana1 Calcutta1 Kerala1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 147176 Section 148163 Section 143(3)77 Addition to Income63 Section 143(2)56 Section 26355 Reopening of Assessment42 Section 14A39 Reassessment

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

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 169 · Page 1 of 9

...

38

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007- 08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed.” 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

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)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as valid. In the instance case, the relevant data /information was available before the AO at the time of assessment and it was duly verified. Thus, it can be inferred that the AO in the original assessment proceedings has consciously treated the LTCG as exempted

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

147 for subjecting to tax the income for the impugned year merely on account of absence of registration under section 12A. [Para 7] ■ The contention of the revenue on the other hand is that since the assessee failed to fulfill the condition stipulated for claiming exemption under sections 11 & 12 of filing return of income along with report of audit

CONCORD INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA vs. PCIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 174/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, rightly contended that the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under section

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. However the assessee objected on the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by stating that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings is barred by time in terms of First proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. The AO could not discover any new facts subsequent to the completion of assessment u/s

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. However the assessee objected on the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by stating that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings is barred by time in terms of First proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. The AO could not discover any new facts subsequent to the completion of assessment u/s

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. However the assessee objected on the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by stating that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings is barred by time in terms of First proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. The AO could not discover any new facts subsequent to the completion of assessment u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. However the assessee objected on the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by stating that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings is barred by time in terms of First proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. The AO could not discover any new facts subsequent to the completion of assessment u/s

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 68

147 read with 144 of the Act, the Ld. AR stated that before forming reason to believe on the basis of such information there has to be application of mind in an objective manner by the AO and only thereafter, there should be formation of belief. In the last of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following

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

exemption U/S 80HHC to the tune of Rs. 1,34,76,630/- which was allowed by the Ld. AO. vide an order u/s 143(3). (2) Subsequently, the case was reopened and finally the reassessment was completed by the Ld. AO. by passing an order u/s 143(3)1 147

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

u/s 147 of the Act is invalid by observing as under:- “I have considered facts of the case, the remand report of the AO as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. In this case, the return filed by the appellant declaring loss of Rs.14,95,34,954/- was processed under

RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 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 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition was made u/s 68. 4. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act would reveal that the ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order has not discussed about a single document or explanation furnished

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

u/s. 143(3), the proviso to Sec. 147 further mandates that no action shall be taken under Section 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

reassessment by mentioning as follows:- Mistake in computation of total income. To be produced details of proof of evidences claiming exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act in respect of capital gain during the FY 2004-05 relevant with AY 2005- 06. 3.2. The assessee vide letter dated 17.4.2012 requested the ld AO to inform the reason for initiating proceedings

M/S PILANI INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES CORP LTD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT

Section 10(33)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2008 by recording the following reasons: “While going through the assessment records, it was found that the assessee has not disallowed any expenditure in respect of dividend income exempted u/s. 10(33). The dividend income earned by the assessee from Indian Companies which is exempted u/s

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings that were A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5 The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings that were A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5 The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

ITA 1680/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Adhir kr. Bar, CIT, ld.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act for donations received, the registration u/s 12AA of the Act is mandatory. He also argued that donations received by assessee falls under the definition of income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act and accordingly prayed for non-interference in the orders of the lower authorities. ITA Nos. 1680-1685/Kol/12--C-AM

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 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 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act, the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and an omission to do so is a defect which is not curable and an action of AO not to issue such a notice goes to the root of the jurisdiction of an AO to frame valid assessment order