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.

9 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 142Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh36Delhi14Mumbai9Jaipur8Raipur6Nagpur6Surat5Pune5Lucknow5Ahmedabad4Patna4Bangalore4Agra2Chennai2Kolkata2Hyderabad1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14821Section 143(3)10Section 69C10Section 14710Section 1519Reassessment8Reopening of Assessment8Addition to Income6Section 263

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 notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 13. It is observed that in assessment order, Assessing Officer has referred to decision of Delhi High court in case of assessee for A.Y.2007-08 wherein assessee’s writ petition was dismissed and observed that receipt of DVO’s order after completion of assessment does not make reference invalid. It is relevant

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

4
Section 50C3
Section 55A3
Natural Justice3
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 notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 13. It is observed that in assessment order, Assessing Officer has referred to decision of Delhi High court in case of assessee for A.Y.2007-08 wherein assessee’s writ petition was dismissed and observed that receipt of DVO’s order after completion of assessment does not make reference invalid. It is relevant

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 notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 13. It is observed that in assessment order, Assessing Officer has referred to decision of Delhi High court in case of assessee for A.Y.2007-08 wherein assessee’s writ petition was dismissed and observed that receipt of DVO’s order after completion of assessment does not make reference invalid. It is relevant

ITO 17 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEUMEC BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6423/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 50C

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2016. V The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We, at the outset, find that the learned CIT(A) has very succinctly described

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3844/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

u/s 147 r/w 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-06-2022. The statue provides for time limit for completion of such reassessment proceedings and such an order passed by the Assessing officer has to necessarily comply with the time limits so specified. 13. The relevant provisions dealing with time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment proceedings

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

u/s 147 r/w 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-06-2022. The statue provides for time limit for completion of such reassessment proceedings and such an order passed by the Assessing officer has to necessarily comply with the time limits so specified. 13. The relevant provisions dealing with time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment proceedings

MOUNT VIEW CLUB & RESORTS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

ITA 1358/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69B

section 142A from D.V.O. The Ld. Counsel further submits that reference to valuation is discretionary and therefore, as reference to D.V.O. is invalid, the assessment or reassessment framed thereunder will be invalid. 8. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in [328 ITR 513] submits that

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 741/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

147 of the act cannot be initiated merely on the ground\nthat the learned assessing officer has lost sight of the statutory\nprovisions like 50C, 43CA and section 56 (2) of the act. For this\nproposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable\nBombay High Court in case of in ICOR Ltd dated 23 July 2018.\n32. He further

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reassessment on ground that shares of assessee-company were purchased by fictitious companies which were not in existence and Assessee in support of its stand about genuineness of transaction entered into with such companies had produced voluminous documents which included assessment orders, the burden would shift on revenue to establish their case. The SLP filed against the said order