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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai53Delhi32Allahabad21Patna16Bangalore16Jaipur14Kolkata9Mumbai9Nagpur8Hyderabad8Lucknow8Raipur7Chandigarh7Pune7Amritsar3Agra2Indore2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26334Section 688Section 143(3)6Section 144A5Section 92C5Section 1484Section 144C(13)4Addition to Income4Revision u/s 2634Section 143(2)

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3721/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 48

reassessment\nthat stood abated shall stand revived.\n\n10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it\nbecomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is\nonly the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the\ndate of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under\nSection 132A

3
Transfer Pricing3
Deduction3

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

144A is the Ld. JCIT has to give his judgement/ direction on a issue before him and the Ld. AO is bound to implement such judgement direction. Therefore it is submitted that no proper judgement/ direction given by the JCIT and therefore the order of the Ld. AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is null and void

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3768/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 92C

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80G

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3689/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 263

144A. But, he is quipe silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment 7 Mondelez India Foods Private Limited order is passed after the direction of DRP Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1043/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Unadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90Section 92C

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing 6 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Officer, as the case may be, conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief

MR. ABHIJEET SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2920/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 148

144A before Ld. Jt CIT range 16(2), requesting him to pass direction on whether Ld. AO had material leading to reasons to believe that income has escaped the assessment for making reassessment, whether other provisions of Chapter XIV were complied, directing Ld. AO to provide copy of material on the basis of which assessment is made. f. Ld. JCIT

SPEEDKING COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4677/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Speedking Courier Income Tax Officer- Services Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(3), 25/27, Old Hanuman Galli, Room No. 648, Vs. 1St Cross Lane, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 002. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaics3715M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) Sr., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. The Appellant Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer- 4(3)(3) Mumbai By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Addition Of Rs.1,53,00,000/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 1. The Ld Cit(A) Is Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Made By The Ld. A.O. Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Basic Condition To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Satisfied In The Present Case. Hence, The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not In Accordance With The Law & The Same May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) Sr., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234BSection 68

144A by Ld. Additional commissioner of Income-tax range 4(3) Mumbai and came to the finding that the assessee company has not returned the money back to M/s. Averina International Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on the same day i.e. 24/11/2011 and in fact, the amount, in question, was refunded in Mr. Francis Xavier Furtado's bank account

BOMBAY TYRES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

144A dated 28th June, 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the merits of the case. 2 Bombay Tyres AY 2017-18 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the additions in respect of PAN AAGCB1604E which pertains to a non-existent entity. Therefore, any proceedings