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.

30 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi300Mumbai259Bangalore100Jaipur72Ahmedabad56Hyderabad47Chennai47Rajkot44Chandigarh30Kolkata30Raipur30Surat28Allahabad22Pune19Indore16Cochin14Lucknow11Patna8Amritsar6Agra6Cuttack4Visakhapatnam3Karnataka3Nagpur3Jabalpur1Gauhati1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14765Section 143(3)38Section 14838Section 271(1)(c)30Section 26329Section 143(2)20Section 6818Addition to Income16Section 36(1)(viia)

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceedings. He, in this respect, has made the following written submissions along with case laws: “2. The assessee relies on the following decisions in support of its contentions: a) In Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemet Family Trust vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC) wherein

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

14
Reassessment12
Reopening of Assessment12
Penalty5

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

147 is bad in law, since no fresh reopening of assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment was reopened earlier in the first round. was reopened earlier

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

292 BB of the Act cannot\nobviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing\nOfficer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. it is\nnecessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a\nnotice under Section

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

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

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

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

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

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

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

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassessment proceedings were initiated in this case, by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.09.2010, prior to the end of the limitation period to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act was null and void. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 158Section 250

147 of the Act within a particular period. The relevant periods, both in terms of the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act and in terms of Section 153 thereof, have expired. As noticed by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and is quoted above, the time is of some significance and notices can no longer

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2379/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted.” 10. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) and ‘Amrik Singh’ (Supra) were followed in ‘Munni Devi vs. ITO’, order dated15.09.2016, passed by the ITAT, Delhi (SMC), in ITA No.3534/Del/2014, for A.Y. 2007-08 and ‘Harmeet Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 10.02.2017 passed

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2380/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted.” 10. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) and ‘Amrik Singh’ (Supra) were followed in ‘Munni Devi vs. ITO’, order dated15.09.2016, passed by the ITAT, Delhi (SMC), in ITA No.3534/Del/2014, for A.Y. 2007-08 and ‘Harmeet Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 10.02.2017 passed

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2381/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted.” 10. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) and ‘Amrik Singh’ (Supra) were followed in ‘Munni Devi vs. ITO’, order dated15.09.2016, passed by the ITAT, Delhi (SMC), in ITA No.3534/Del/2014, for A.Y. 2007-08 and ‘Harmeet Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 10.02.2017 passed

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. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

292) and held that the A.O. has power to investigate the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the shareholders. 42. It is submitted by the ld AR that the Ld. Principal CIT did not speak a word in respect of the various authorities which were brought to his notice supporting the appellant's claim that without incriminating material no further

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

292) and held that the A.O. has power to investigate the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the shareholders. 42. It is submitted by the ld AR that the Ld. Principal CIT did not speak a word in respect of the various authorities which were brought to his notice supporting the appellant's claim that without incriminating material no further

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

292) and held that the A.O. has power to investigate the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the shareholders. 42. It is submitted by the ld AR that the Ld. Principal CIT did not speak a word in respect of the various authorities which were brought to his notice supporting the appellant's claim that without incriminating material no further

SUSEN CHAKI,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 20/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06

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

section 133(6) of the Act was not cross verified is baseless. On examination of lower authorities, we find that sufficient opportunities were given by the lower authorities to counter the allegations framed by the AO but the assessee failed to do so. The ld AR before us has also not brought anything contrary to the finding

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 226/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr.Pande, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292Section 69

147 of the Act. On the above submission the CIT(A) held as follows :- ITA No.226/Kol/2014-Shri Subrata Saha A.Y.2006-07 6 “6.2 I have considered the submission of the AR and perused the assessment order and the submissions. I find that the AO has not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. I find that the IT AT Kolkata

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2359/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

292\nM/s\nSen\nFerro AAICS0672B\n2013-14\nVyapaar Pvt.Ltd\nAlloys Pvt.Ltd\nM/s Sen Ferro AAICS0672B\nAlloys Pvt.Ltd\n2013-14\nM/s Sankatharan 94,00,256\nSales Pvt.Ltd\nTotal\n3,69,00,688\n5. Further, the financial analysis of the above mentioned paper companies has\nbeen carried out which revealed noticeable points like (i) no profit accumulation in the\ncompanies across various

M/S IMPLEX FERRO TECH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 292/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act without meeting the valid objections raised against the reasons recorded was contrary to binding principle of law as decided in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., 259 ITR 19 (SC) and that being so the arbitrary and uncalled for additions of Rs.56,86,08,759/- and Rs.32