BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

2,447 results for “reassessment”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,711Mumbai2,447Chennai930Ahmedabad566Jaipur529Hyderabad529Bangalore492Kolkata444Raipur416Chandigarh307Pune296Rajkot205Indore200Amritsar160Surat160Cochin138Visakhapatnam128Patna113Nagpur109Cuttack90Guwahati90Agra87Ranchi66Dehradun62Lucknow61Jodhpur57Allahabad37Panaji27Jabalpur5Varanasi5

Key Topics

Section 148111Section 147107Addition to Income89Section 143(3)68Section 6850Section 148A46Section 69A41Reopening of Assessment36Reassessment34Section 132

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

11(5) or Section 13\nof the IT Act, in finalizing the petitioner's assessment for the assessment\nyear in question. On such a backdrop, on a plain reading of the reasons for\nreopening as furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that the Assessing\nOfficer has sought to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion\nin the application

Showing 1–20 of 2,447 · Page 1 of 123

...
27
Section 15125
Disallowance20

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

11(5) or Section 13\nof the IT Act, in finalizing the petitioner's assessment for the assessment\nyear in question. On such a backdrop, on a plain reading of the reasons for\nreopening as furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that the Assessing\nOfficer has sought to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion\nin the application

ASIA SOCIETY INDIA CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3921/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 250

11(3) of the Act had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. While quashing the reassessment

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. JASLOK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE , MUMBAI

ITA 2460/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Atul Suraiya / Ms. Bhavika JainFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) / Ms. Rajeshwari Menon (SR DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 143(3), date of order 24/12/2018 for A.Y. 2016-17.\n2. All the appeals have same nature of facts and have common issue. Therefore, we heard all the appeals together and are disposed of by this common order. The appeal of revenueITA No.2462/Mum/2024 for AY 2006-07 is taken as lead case. The revenue has raised the following grounds

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4665/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 11Section 250

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 11Section 250

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. JASLOK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, DR. G. DESHMUKH MARG,

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos 2460,2462, 2657,\n2676 & 2677/Mum/2024 are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee\nbearing C

ITA 2462/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Atul Suraiya / Ms. Bhavika JainFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) / Ms. Rajeshwari Menon (SR DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 143(3), date of order 24/12/2018 for A.Y. 2016-17.\n2. All the appeals have same nature of facts and have common issue. Therefore, we heard all the appeals together and are disposed of by this common order. The appeal of revenueITA No.2462/Mum/2024 for AY 2006-07 is taken as lead case. The revenue has raised the following grounds

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

reassessment and recovery of tax in respect of income earned by a deceased person up to the date of his death. The section creates a deceased person up to the date of his death. The section deceased person up to the date of his death. The section legal fiction whereby the legal representative steps into the shoes of legal fiction

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4306/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section 11

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2836/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

11,32,413/- was made under Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2845/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4261/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section 11

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 4307/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section 11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

ITA 2623/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2617/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4260/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section 11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2621/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non \ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.” \n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation