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.

607 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi671Mumbai607Bangalore293Ahmedabad112Jaipur87Hyderabad81Chennai77Kolkata69Pune49Rajkot26Agra26Indore24Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Lucknow18Chandigarh18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack7Karnataka7Ranchi7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Raipur3SC3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 148115Section 143(3)88Addition to Income78Section 14775Section 234B50Section 153A47Reassessment45Section 6844Section 25040Section 69A

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234A, 234B

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Showing 1–20 of 607 · Page 1 of 31

...
31
Disallowance28
Reopening of Assessment26
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234A, 234B

SAMBHAVANATH INFRABUILD FARMS (SUCCESSOR TO LODHA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1897/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69D

reassessment under section 153A shall lie with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 65.11 Consequential amendments have also been made in sections 132, 132B, 140A, 234A, 234B

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7413/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153C

reassessment under section 153A shall lie with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 65.11 Consequential amendments have also been made in sections 132, 132B, 140A, 234A, 234B

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2092/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 68

section 234B of the Act. F. GENERAL: The Appellant‘s craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.‖ 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2006-07 on 24.10.2006, declaring an income of Rs. 25,310/-. Search and seizure action

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

ITA 3234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. 33. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on his part, sought to defend the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) with considerable fervor. He submitted that the seized excel sheets and loose papers though not part of the statutory books

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3230/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised by the assessee in connected assessment years, it emerges that the challenge revolves primarily

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1691/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 4824/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

reassessment proceedings under section 147. 2. Grounds not legally decided by the CIT(A) The learned CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in not legally deciding the following grounds challenged by the appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for deferred tax ii) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect

TATA MOTERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A CIT, CIR..-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 3334/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

reassessment proceedings under section 147. 2. Grounds not legally decided by the CIT(A) The learned CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in not legally deciding the following grounds challenged by the appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for deferred tax ii) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6791/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 234A

Section 234A and 234B be deleted.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, challenged the validity of reassessment

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

reassessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.2023, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) and section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 19,370/-, i.e. the returned income. Interest under sections 234A, 234B

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3235/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised by the assessee in connected assessment years, it emerges that the challenge revolves primarily around interrelated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3926/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. (iv) the assessment orders are further invalidated for issue of defective notice under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3886/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. (iv) the assessment orders are further invalidated for issue of defective notice under

RAMESH AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

ITA 9067/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 68

234B and 234C of the Act. 11. The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter and amend the above grounds whenever required. Facts in Brief 3. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,11,400/-. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022 pursuant to the order passed under section 148A(d). The reassessment

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

section 234A and\n234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under\nsection 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially\nreduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above\ngrounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised

GOVIND CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3231/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

section 234A and\n234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under\nsection 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially\nreduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above\ngrounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 4912/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

234B of the Act. 3. Shri Rajan Vora, appearing on behalf of the assessee made three fold submissions assailing reopening under section 147 of the Act. The first plank of his argument is against initiation of 2nd reopening proceedings during the subsistence of first reassessment