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.

5,748 results for “reassessment”+ Section 2(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,209Mumbai5,748Chennai1,813Bangalore1,474Kolkata1,439Ahmedabad1,178Jaipur1,066Hyderabad815Pune754Chandigarh510Raipur509Surat433Indore412Visakhapatnam337Amritsar324Rajkot315Cochin286Cuttack272Karnataka204Patna171Agra170Nagpur167Guwahati146Lucknow134Ranchi122Dehradun113Telangana99Jodhpur83Allahabad65SC47Panaji43Calcutta35Jabalpur31Kerala16Orissa16Varanasi15Rajasthan12Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Himachal Pradesh2Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 148117Section 147104Section 143(3)88Addition to Income75Reassessment46Section 153A43Reopening of Assessment37Section 25030Section 13229

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

6 of\nthe order, page 207 of the Case Law Paper Book No. 2). The\nHon'ble Court took cognizance of the remark made by the Addl.\nCIT that he did not have time to analyze the issues arising out of\nthe draft order and hence the granting of approval was held to be\na mechanical exercise. In the present

Showing 1–20 of 5,748 · Page 1 of 288

...
Section 153C27
Disallowance27
Section 6824

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

section 143(2) within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

section 143(2) within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

section 143(2) within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3943/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

section 143(2) within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return was furnished by the assessee, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer with regard to the block assessment after the period of limitation was barred and the entire proceedings in pursuance of such notice is null and void. 6. Ld. DR vehemently

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

6 October 2009 much beyond the period of six months. In such a situation, there could be no occasion to serve the notice within six months since the very act of issuance was beyond six months. Now, it is in this background that it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 292 BB of the Act. Section

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

section 6(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation (b) his status was non-resident, therefore, the global income cannot be taxed in India. We, 53 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh therefore, on this issue, affirm the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 194/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 217/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 220/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 195/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 192/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 221/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 193/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

section 80P(2)(d) is restricted to deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are deposit made with ‘cooperative society’ and ‘cooperative bank’ are distinct from the cooperative society from the cooperative society, no deduction can be allowed , no deduction can be allowed for deposits with Cooperative Bank

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8570/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2007-08
Section 115JSection 120Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

6. Similar view has -been taken recently in another judgment by the Delhi bench of the ITAT in the case of Harvinder Singh Jaggi Vs. ACIT 157 lTD 869 (Delhi). Relevant part of observations of the Bench is reproduced below:- .........As regard the contention of the assessee that no order The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., under section 127 was passed

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

Section 263 read with Explanation 2 thereto. 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: ―1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Principal CIT (Central), Mumbai -2 has erred in passing the order U/s.263 setting aside the reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment

GRAMEEN IMPACT INVESTMENT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL -E ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi
Section 56

reassessment made pursuant to an audit note. The pursuant to an audit note. The claim was disallowed on the ground that the payment of claim was disallowed on the ground that the payment of claim was disallowed on the ground that the payment of gratuity to the director was an exgratia payment; that at gratuity to the director

SHUMBHLAXMI DYETEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3256/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). Thus Assessee Request To Raise This Legal Point As Additional Ground.

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

ITA 2914/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

2) of the Act subsequent to 16th Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 6 of 10 December 2010 when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of reassessment

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

6. The learned PCIT erred in holding that deduction under sec not allowable for donations made in fulfillment of CSR obligations under not allowable for donations made in fulfillment of CSR obligations under not allowable for donations made in fulfillment of CSR obligations under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, thereby ignoring various section 135 of the Companies