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.

102 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 10A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai102Delhi62Bangalore45Chennai38Hyderabad20Kolkata17Jaipur14Lucknow11Karnataka6Cochin6Pune5Guwahati3Telangana3Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Cuttack1Panaji1Ranchi1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)166Section 10A130Section 147108Section 14880Addition to Income58Disallowance56Deduction55Reopening of Assessment47Section 10B

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

147 of the Act. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO stated that from A.Y. 2001-02 onward the provisions of section10A of and 10B of the Act have been brought at per with the other section dealing with deductions allowed under chapters VI-A of the Act. From first April 2001 onwards the brought forward losses pertaining

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

45
Reassessment42
Section 12A41
Section 69C35

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMNE TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3107/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 70Section 71Section 72

147 of the Act. The assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 18.02.2009. Two years from the said financial year ended on 31.03.2011. The notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 02.03.2016 and thus, the notice u/s 263 of the Act is barred by limitation, ultra virus and bad in law. In support

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

7. It is on the strength of the above submissions made by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings that it is contended that the reopening initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer is nothing but mere change of opinion, not permissible u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148. The said original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) vide

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

7. It is on the strength of the above submissions made by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings that it is contended that the reopening initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer is nothing but mere change of opinion, not permissible u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148. The said original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) vide

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

7. It is on the strength of the above submissions made by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings that it is contended that the reopening initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer is nothing but mere change of opinion, not permissible u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148. The said original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) vide

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPAGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

ITA 2291/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala and Shri Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings were barred under the second proviso to section 147. 7) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that interest income Rs.20,89,000/- did not constitute profits and gains of the undertaking for the purposes of computing deduction u/10A”. 2. The sole issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is with respect to the jurisdictional

CAPGEMINI CONSULTING INIDA P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

ITA 1338/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala and Shri Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings were barred under the second proviso to section 147. 7) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that interest income Rs.20,89,000/- did not constitute profits and gains of the undertaking for the purposes of computing deduction u/10A”. 2. The sole issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is with respect to the jurisdictional

ITO (3) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. R.K. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

ITA 1318/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala and Shri Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings were barred under the second proviso to section 147. 7) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that interest income Rs.20,89,000/- did not constitute profits and gains of the undertaking for the purposes of computing deduction u/10A”. 2. The sole issue raised in the grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is with respect to the jurisdictional

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessment was reopened in this case on the basis of information received from ADIT (Inv)- Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 that M/s Limbo Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AABCL9224B) has opened current account (account no. 3680301113595) with SB Road branch, Kolkota which was used

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELLKNOWN POLYSTERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessment was reopened in this case on the basis of information received from ADIT (Inv)- Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 that M/s Limbo Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AABCL9224B) has opened current account (account no. 3680301113595) with SB Road branch, Kolkota which was used

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessment was reopened in this case on the basis of information received from ADIT (Inv)- Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 that M/s Limbo Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AABCL9224B) has opened current account (account no. 3680301113595) with SB Road branch, Kolkota which was used

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

7. In the present case, it is plain that the reassessment notice was based upon a second opinion or revisiting of the same facts by a subsequent Assessing Officer and no more. For these reasons, the reassessment notice has to be quashed." 23. Further, it is relevant to refer to the ruling of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

7. In the present case, it is plain that the reassessment notice was based upon a second opinion or revisiting of the same facts by a subsequent Assessing Officer and no more. For these reasons, the reassessment notice has to be quashed." 23. Further, it is relevant to refer to the ruling of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court