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.

16 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi388Mumbai353Bangalore141Chennai109Jaipur91Hyderabad90Chandigarh64Raipur47Ahmedabad40Indore29Allahabad22Guwahati22Telangana22Lucknow20Amritsar17Kolkata16Pune15Visakhapatnam12Rajkot9Surat9Patna7Cuttack6Agra5Cochin4Orissa2Rajasthan1Nagpur1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25Section 14824Section 14723Section 15416Addition to Income12Section 153A10Section 148(2)7Section 271B6Section 115J

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

6
Reassessment6
Reopening of Assessment6
Unexplained Cash Credit4

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

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 u/s

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

u/s. 148 of the Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art Press Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 876 wherein it was held that when reassessment proceedings commence following the issue of a notice under section 148 and the same are pending

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

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

147 read with 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

PRANNAY SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 61, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80G

115 taxmann.com 244 (Bom) Finally the Ld. A.R. prayed before the bench that assessment order so framed by the AO may kindly be quashed by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed to the contentions of the Ld. A.R by submitting that the said issue was never raised before

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

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

147 of the Act and the reassessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 04.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs. 74,29,230/- . In the re assessment, a sum of Rs. 9,94,152/- was added by the ld. AO towards long term capital gain. Brief facts of this addition is that the assessee sold two properties

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

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

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

147 Order, presumed the entire deposits as trading receipts and by applying 8% estimated margin derived the additional total income at Rs. 18,58,785/-. b) The assessee would like to state that such calculation is made on an ad-hoc basis and is construed to be an act on the basis of certain presumption, conjecture and surmise. The assessee

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

147 Order, presumed the entire deposits as trading receipts and by applying 8% estimated margin derived the additional total income at Rs. 18,58,785/-. b) The assessee would like to state that such calculation is made on an ad-hoc basis and is construed to be an act on the basis of certain presumption, conjecture and surmise. The assessee

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

u/s 147 of the Act can be initiated only where there was “reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of the assessee has escaped assessment”. The two decisions referred to in this regard were CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Delhi) and Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs CIT 366 ITR 115 (Delhi). 13. On the aspect that

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

u/s 147 of the Act can be initiated only where there was “reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of the assessee has escaped assessment”. The two decisions referred to in this regard were CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Delhi) and Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs CIT 366 ITR 115 (Delhi). 13. On the aspect that

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