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.

48 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi540Mumbai244Jaipur146Bangalore117Chandigarh94Hyderabad85Raipur54Ahmedabad50Kolkata48Chennai38Pune37Lucknow35Telangana24Indore23Guwahati22Amritsar22Nagpur21Surat21Patna20Jodhpur18Cochin15Rajkot12Dehradun8Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Agra5Allahabad4Orissa2Rajasthan1SC1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14896Section 14790Section 143(3)41Section 6839Addition to Income39Section 26334Section 143(2)26Section 14424Reopening of Assessment

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

u/s 133(6) of the Act, the NSE issued a letter on 16/01/2017 and stated as follows: 16/01/2017 and stated as follows:- “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

24
Section 25020
Disallowance11
Reassessment11

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

147 read with section 2(7A) of the Act. Thus, the reassessment order was quashed. 5.2.5 It is also relevant to note that Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in Income Tax Appeal No.894/Kol/2012 dated 14/05/2013 in the case of Chanakya Finvest (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer held that: "6. After going through the provisions of sections 120,124 and 127

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

reassessment framed u/s 147 of the Act being without jurisdiction is bad in law and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Since the facts before us are materially similar to ones as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal, we, respectfully the decision of the coordinate bench

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

reassessment framed u/s 147 of the Act being without jurisdiction is bad in law and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Since the facts before us are materially similar to ones as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal, we, respectfully the decision of the coordinate bench

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ADHUNIK CEMENT LTD., (NOW DALMIA BHARAT CEMENT), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

127 DTR 241, has recognised the right of the assessee to cross-examine the witness of the revenue. He took this bench through the replies given by these two witnesses of the revenue during the course of cross- examination and submitted that it is not a case of retraction. He pointed out that it was during cross examination

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 8Section 80HSection 80I

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 has been initiated in utter disregard of the express provision of the Act and thus the order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in holding that I.T.A. No. 398/KOL./2008 Assessment year

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

147 of the Act without territorial jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the application for prayer for admission of additional ground and the addition ground raised in both the appeals of the assessee reads as under: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction

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

147 of the Act without territorial jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the application for prayer for admission of additional ground and the addition ground raised in both the appeals of the assessee reads as under: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction

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

147 of the Act without territorial jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the application for prayer for admission of additional ground and the addition ground raised in both the appeals of the assessee reads as under: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction

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

147 of the Act without territorial jurisdiction. He drew our attention to the application for prayer for admission of additional ground and the addition ground raised in both the appeals of the assessee reads as under: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

M/S. MONO ORION FOOD INDIA PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2000/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

127 of the paper book and pointed out that it was never alleged that the bank accounts in question belong to the assessee company. He submitted that the amount deposited in those two bank accounts, were transferred to the assessee company through a number of Jama-Kharchi companies. He argued that reasonable belief has to be entertained

M/S. MONO ORION FOOD INDIA PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2001/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

127 of the paper book and pointed out that it was never alleged that the bank accounts in question belong to the assessee company. He submitted that the amount deposited in those two bank accounts, were transferred to the assessee company through a number of Jama-Kharchi companies. He argued that reasonable belief has to be entertained

DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. MANJULA SHUKLA, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 285/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 124(3)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment for the AY 2003/04 to the charge of ITO, Kolkata who thereafter passed the order of assessment u/s 147/143(3). The assessee challenged validity of the proceedings and consequent order u/s 143(3)/147 on the ground that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the officer who did not hold valid jurisdiction over the assessee's case

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)

reassessment framed u/s 147 of the Act being without jurisdiction is bad in law and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Since the facts before us are materially similar to ones as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal, we, respectfully the decision of the coordinate bench

DOLPHIN GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

ITA 240/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2009-10

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 127Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263

147 of the Act and after issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act the AO noted that assessee during the relevant assessment year had issued share capital of Rs.28,72,500/- (287250 number of shares at the face value of Rs. 10/- each) and share premium of Rs.10,81,27,500/-. The AO notes that he had issued notice

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

127 on account of payment of service tax by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. 0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,11,407 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

127 on account of payment of service tax by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. 0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,11,407 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

127 on account of payment of service tax by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. 0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,11,407 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted