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.

24 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai24Chennai21Cochin19Jaipur18Ahmedabad8Kolkata7Pune6Hyderabad5Rajkot4Delhi3Chandigarh3Visakhapatnam3Bangalore3Raipur3Nagpur2Indore2Guwahati2Patna1SC1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 44A48Section 271B43Section 14831Section 14729Penalty19Section 1118Section 26313Addition to Income13Section 11(2)12

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

147 [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Section 212
Reassessment10
Reopening of Assessment8

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 6140/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 37(1)

271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and has also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act has raised

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271F

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 897/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 275

reassessment proceedings and not filed even the basic details within the time allowed in the notices. 6. Conclusion drawn for Imposition of Penalty: 4 ITA No.897/Mum/2024 - Shyam Kumar Sadashivam Pillai 6.1 On considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case and it becomes apparent that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed the return

MS MILAN AGENCY,MUMBAI vs. ITO ASSESSEMENT UNIT, IT DEPT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5414/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Milan Agency Ito, Assessment Unit, It Deptt. Shop No. 6, Friends Shopping Vs. Centre, Azad Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aaefm 8738 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, Advocate & Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Advocate & Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 145ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 274Section 44A

271B” when it is evident from the income tax website that the tax audit report u/s 44AB was uploaded by the tax auditor and confirmed by your appellant.” 3 M/s. Milan Agency A.Y. 2018-19 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NFAC') has failed

PUMPKIN PICTURES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bhosle, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

147 of the Act were initiated on the basis that despite receiving substantial contract receipts and professional and technical fees, the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. It is discernible from the record that even in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Pumpkin Pictures Private Limited

MS. KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3273/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

MAHARASHRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 551/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 550/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 554/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 553/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 549/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 552/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

DATTATRAY NAMDEV SURYAWANSHI,PANVEL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 896/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Makwana, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 194CSection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 26.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under: Ground 1: The order passed u/s 250 of Income tax Act, 1961 by the honourable CIT (A) is against law and facts on in as much