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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi523Mumbai461Bangalore243Chennai149Jaipur134Hyderabad122Ahmedabad92Chandigarh75Surat52Raipur50Amritsar47Indore33Guwahati33Telangana28Lucknow27Allahabad25Pune23Kolkata21Visakhapatnam20Cochin20Cuttack10Agra8Patna7Rajkot6Karnataka6Nagpur4Orissa3Rajasthan3SC3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Varanasi2Uttarakhand1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 69C6Section 684Section 10(38)4Section 115B4Section 148A4Section 1484Addition to Income4Section 69A3Section 142(1)3Capital Gains

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C
2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Bogus/Accommodation Entry2

115) [Vol.- III] iv) 422 ITR 520 (Bom) PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. (P- 116 – 123) (123) [Vol.- III] v) (2019) 104 taxmann.com 216 (Bom.) South Yarra Holdings vs. ITO (P- 167 – 170) (170) [Vol.- II] F) Invocation of section 147 of I.T. Act 1961 (amended) is strictly contingent upon the existence of actual escapement of income chargeable

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted chart of capital Gain working and profit on sale of shares account during the course of assessment proceedings as well

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under S. 148 quashed. 7. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (Supreme Court of India) 12 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 KishinchandChellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources-Chargeability

SUMIT PRAKASHRAO FULZELE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

reassessment in case where assessee had made a deposit of cash in bank during demonetization period, which was reflected in his return of income, but no supporting evidences were available to prove source of such deposit leading to 'reason to believe that income otherwise chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; SLP filed against High Court's judgment dismissed as withdrawn