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.

17 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 88Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai17Ahmedabad1Chandigarh1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)36Section 88E24Section 115J17Section 14714Section 14811Business Income11Section 1439Capital Gains9Long Term Capital Gains9Short Term Capital Gains9Set Off of Losses9Carry Forward of Losses9

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MUIMBAI STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

147 of the Act it implies that the Assessing Officer should have formed an opinion at the first instance, i.e., in the proceedings under section 143(3) and thereafter, with the initiation of the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer proposes or wants to take a different view. The word "opinion" is derived from the latin word "opinari" which means

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. CHOKHANI SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6602/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhita No. 6603/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri B.S.BistFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedhia
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 88ESection 94(7)

147 which are clearly applicable in the present case. " 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting rebate under section.88E of the IT Act thereby, overlooking the crucial fact that Securities Transaction Tax is an indirect tax and if cannot be equated with prepaid taxes like Advance

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. KBII SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5823/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 88E

147, for the assessment year 2008-09, on the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the assessee the rebate under section 88E when tax liability was determined under section 115JB of the Income

GNANA KATHIR SINGARAYAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

88E of the Act of Rs3,80,420/-as against of Rs. 2,37,265/- allowed by the AO and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee company has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee made submissions on the legal

MAGNUM EQUITY BROKING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5503/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Magnum Equity The Acit Circle 4 (3), बनाम/ Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6Th Vs. D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, Dr. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5661N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 88E

88E of the Act of Rs3,80,420/-as against of Rs. 2,37,265/- allowed by the AO and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee company has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee made submissions on the legal

TWIN EARTH SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RG 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6604/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Twin Earth Dy.Cit, Securities P. Ltd., Range - 4(2)(1), 301/302 Prime Plaza, Room No.642, Vs. 38-A, S.V. Road, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 054 M.K. Road, Pan: Aabct3066F Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54ESection 88E

88E is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on legal issue as well as on merit. First of all ,we are adjudicating the legal ground first which is ground No.2

SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3418/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Wagle, AR byFor Respondent: Shri V.Vinod Kumar Sr DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

147 could have been issued on or before 31.3.2014 i.e. 4 yrs. from the end of assessment year 2009-10 & hence, the notice dated 23.3.2016 was invalid having been issued beyond 4 years and there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully & truly the material, though not contended before him and the lower authority. Grounds

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5441/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4475/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5442/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4366/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3053/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 2469/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4476/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5303/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5302/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(3) r.w,s. 147 dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O., the assessee is treated to be an investor. The CIT- 4, Mumbai sets aside the order of A.O. vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 and ITAT quashes the order of CIT by order dated 31.10.2006. 8. A.Y.2003-04 -Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 16.9.2005 was passed by A.O. accepting

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 47(vii) of the Act. 6.7 In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that this allegation too is misconceived and not relevant. 7. Enquiries made by the Assessing Officer in respect of merger of ECHL with ISL: 7.1 Your Honour has also referred to the merger of ECHL with the ISL and made the following allegations