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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 13Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi33Mumbai7Jaipur6Dehradun5Hyderabad3Patna2Indore2Ranchi1Bangalore1Kolkata1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 26312Section 14711Section 108Section 1487Section 143(3)5Reopening of Assessment5Addition to Income4Reassessment4Section 148A3Section 143(2)

VIJAY RAAZ ,GODBUNDAR ROAD, DIST. THANE vs. WARD 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 29ASection 80G

reassess the income under section 263 in violation of CBDT guidelines of issuing the speaking order. No findings recorded how the donation paid by the assessee is non-genuine: 6. The learned PCIT failed to bring on record any findings or evidence as how the donation is not genuine and how the cash is paid back to the assessee against

2
Section 29A2
Exemption2

GRACEUNITED DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2049/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is identical in both the years and for AY 2013-14, it reads as under:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2)(1), MUMBAI/ To, GRACEUNITED DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED FLAT

GRACEUNITED DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBA

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

ITA 2048/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings within the meaning of Section 147\nof the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is identical\nin both the years and for AY 2013-14, it reads as under:-\nTo,\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER\nWARD 12(2)(1), MUMBAI/\nGRACEUNITED DEVELOPERS PRIVATE\nLIMITED FLAT

HENRIETTA MARIA PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147

reassessment order for which case of the assessee was reopened. He referred to the reasons recorded for reopening at page 33 of the paper book. He pointed that a perusal of the reasons for reopening would show that the assessment for assessment year 2002-03 was reopened on two counts: (i) HRA claimed by the assessee is not admissible

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

reassessment without complying with the mandatory provisions 1 Sudhir Namdev Kadam of Section 148A, thereby rendering the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B as bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

BHOLARAM MALVIYA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-16(1)|(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

13A, Deodar Street, Ground Floor Kolkata 700019 3 Rasraj Enclave Maker Pvt. Ltd. 1,00,00,000 U69191WB2004PTC099745 Room No. 3B83, SP Mukherjee (Director – Sh. Ram Mohan Road, Kolkata, WB 700026. Chatterjee 14 A.Y. 2013-14 Bholaram Malviya 4 Ram Mohan Chatterjee 2,73,00,000 DIN-06363881 ITO- Ward-3(2). VSP A-1, Dumurjala HIT Quarter, 43, Jagacha

DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)

13A of the Paper Book to submit that notice was issued for the reason that Assessing Officer failed to disallow the sales expenses which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the issues raised in notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings