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 196clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi257Mumbai197Bangalore88Jaipur57Chandigarh39Raipur39Chennai24Ahmedabad22Guwahati21Kolkata16Nagpur14Cuttack14Lucknow14Jodhpur9Hyderabad9Indore9Patna5Surat5Pune3Amritsar3Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1Ranchi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14830Section 26322Section 14718Addition to Income13Section 143(3)10Section 80I6Section 14A6Section 148A6Bogus Purchases

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 u/s

6
Bogus/Accommodation Entry6
Section 685
Reassessment5

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

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

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

147 of the Act under which issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act is mandatory before issuing any notice under section 148 of the amended Act which has not been complied with in this case. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this court in the case of Bagaria

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

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

u/s 14A of the Act' 61, and the said addition is without any legal sanction and may please be deleted. 3) For that on the fact of the case neither the Ld. CIT(A) , nor the Ld. A.O. has made out a case, regarding applicability of provisions of sec 14A of the Act' 61, and additions sustained merely on presumptions

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

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

147 read with sec. 148 of the Act, it is noted that in the reassessment order the addition is in respect of the LTCG claim of the assessee in respect of sale of scrip of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act which was held by AO to be bogus and that action

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

SHARAD CHANDRA JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2008/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.2008/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sharad Chandra Jhunjhunwala........……….…....……………………………..………Appellant [Pan : Aedpj8850J] Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata.………………………………………………………..………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

196/-disclosed in the Income Tax Return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the same. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing the trading loss of Rs. 13,11,020/-arising on account of closing stock valuation of equity shares

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

147 of the Act for reopening the assessment that too after satisfying condition precedent given therein. Other than that according to the Ld. AR, the AO was not empowered by law to review his own order and leave alone recommend or put up a proposal to the Ld. Pr. CIT to revise his own order by stating that

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)

147 of the Act. The assessees were given a show- cause notice stating that a search was carried out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department on various entities/persons and it was found that these entities and persons were involved issuance of bogus accommodation bills. The information was passed on DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and from this information, the DGIT(Inv.) found that

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)

147 of the Act. The assessees were given a show- cause notice stating that a search was carried out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department on various entities/persons and it was found that these entities and persons were involved issuance of bogus accommodation bills. The information was passed on DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and from this information, the DGIT(Inv.) found that

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)

147 of the Act. The assessees were given a show- cause notice stating that a search was carried out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department on various entities/persons and it was found that these entities and persons were involved issuance of bogus accommodation bills. The information was passed on DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and from this information, the DGIT(Inv.) found that

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)

147 of the Act. The assessees were given a show- cause notice stating that a search was carried out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department on various entities/persons and it was found that these entities and persons were involved issuance of bogus accommodation bills. The information was passed on DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and from this information, the DGIT(Inv.) found 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)

147 of the Act. The assessees were given a show- cause notice stating that a search was carried out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department on various entities/persons and it was found that these entities and persons were involved issuance of bogus accommodation bills. The information was passed on DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and from this information, the DGIT(Inv.) found that