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.

1,103 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 151(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,786Mumbai1,103Chennai340Bangalore333Jaipur287Kolkata217Ahmedabad193Hyderabad164Chandigarh149Pune133Raipur110Rajkot95Visakhapatnam93Indore68Amritsar54Nagpur52Lucknow50Guwahati49Surat47Agra29Allahabad27Telangana27Dehradun24Jodhpur23Cuttack22Cochin22Patna19Karnataka10Orissa7Ranchi7Varanasi4Kerala2Panaji1SC1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Uttarakhand1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 148161Section 147149Section 153C116Section 143(3)88Addition to Income73Section 6857Reopening of Assessment50Section 15146Reassessment

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2559/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: 03/12/2025
Section 147Section 148ASection 263

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,103 · Page 1 of 56

...
44
Section 153A31
Section 148A28
Disallowance22

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

u/s. 3 (1) of TOLA included (a) the power to assess or reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

147, section 148 section 148, section 149, section 151 and and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 71belongs

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2146/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 153C

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2147/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 153C

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied tha Officer is satisfied that,— a. any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

u/s 153A. The section reads as under: Assessment in case of search or requisition. 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

u/s\n148 is barred by limitation as per proviso to section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2021.\n4 erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024) and of\nthe jurisdictional Mumbai

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4942/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

147 of the Act, without bringing any new tangible\nmaterial to support his view of escapement of income is valid or not?\n(c) Whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the\nassessee that the deduction of 15% allowed u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act\nshould be allowed on gross receipts?\n(d) Whether

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

147 of the Act, without bringing any new tangible\nmaterial to support his view of escapement of income is valid or not?\n(c) Whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the\nassessee that the deduction of 15% allowed u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act\nshould be allowed on gross receipts?\n(d) Whether

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

u/s\n148 is barred by limitation as per proviso to section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2021.\n\n4 erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024) and of\nthe jurisdictional

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2747/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

151 does reopening merely on taking approval from Pr. CIT u/s 151 does not satisfy that AO has applies his mind; not satisfy that AO has applies his mind; 1.2.7. the reassessment is otherwise bad in law; 1.2.7. the reassessment is otherwise bad in law; 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 1.3. The Appellant prays that

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2748/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

151 does reopening merely on taking approval from Pr. CIT u/s 151 does not satisfy that AO has applies his mind; not satisfy that AO has applies his mind; 1.2.7. the reassessment is otherwise bad in law; 1.2.7. the reassessment is otherwise bad in law; 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 1.3. The Appellant prays that

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

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

1) and thereafter a regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 22.10.2019 by Central Circle- 2(2), Mumbai, determining income at Rs. 19,370/-.\n3. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 08.11.2022, again declaring income of Rs. 19,370/-. Notice under