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.

18 results for “reassessment”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai444Delhi404Ahmedabad219Chennai200Hyderabad163Pune127Kolkata97Jaipur84Raipur79Chandigarh77Visakhapatnam73Rajkot69Bangalore67Indore53Agra37Lucknow25Patna23Surat22Nagpur18Dehradun16Guwahati14Amritsar12Ranchi11Cochin9Jodhpur7Cuttack7Calcutta3Orissa2Panaji2Allahabad2SC2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14740Section 26338Section 14833Section 143(3)16Addition to Income14Section 69A13Section 25012Reassessment8Section 143(1)7Reopening of Assessment

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

7
Section 69C6
Cash Deposit4

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

144B r/w section 147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

144B r/w section 147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by AO u/s 147 read with 5 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 section 144B

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) this amount should have been added to the total income as Income from Other Source which was not done in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B for A.Y. 2016-17. 1. In addition, it is seen that the source of investment in the purchase of property i.e. Rs. 34,28,333/- (1/3rd

GANESH MAHADEORAO THAWARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil BahriFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

144B of the Act ex–parte and made addition of ` 3,65,19,694, under section under section 69A of the Act, which was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal, the assessee challenged the re–opening of assessment before the learned CIT(A) amongst other grounds as well. However, the learned CIT(A) set aside

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer 3 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari observed that in the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 that on verification of the scrutiny assessment record, it has been found that assessee made interest payment of Rs.1,80,615/- to various persons without deducting TDS and further on verification of scrutiny assessment record, assessee has claimed expenses of purchase of gold jewellery

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

144B in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18, order dated 27/03/2023; and xvi) Order u/s 155(15) in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his arguments:– i) CIT v/s Max India

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A(9)Section 272(1)(d)Section 44ASection 50CSection 80C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2023, without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in raising an arbitrary and excessive demand of Rs. 9,76,265/-, rendering the assessment order unjustified, unwarranted, and bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred

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

reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel of assessee as well as Ld.CIT-DR. We shall address the addition made by Ld. AO on merits first. Ld. AO in the assessment framed has made addition of Rs.6,77,58,435/- by invoking the provisions of section

BAHUBALI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 34

reassessment order dated 01.01.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.13,28,835/- on account of income from sale transactions of securities and Rs.75,000/- being disallowance on account of provisions debited to profit & loss account. 3. The Assessee though challenged the aforesaid additions, /disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

144B of the Act are also quashed on this issue alone. Ground no. 3 of appeal is allowed. 7.2 Ground no. 1, 2 & 4 of appeal: These are related to the claim of the appellant that the AO erred in law and fact by not considering the submissions of the appellant and adding Closing Capital Balance as of 31.03.2016 amounting

GOPAL PURUSHOTTAM VEGAD,AMRAVATI vs. ITO-WARD 5, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 376/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roygopal Purushottam Vegad, Ito, Ward – 5, Amravati Vinit Vihar, Mangaldham, Vs Dastur Nagar, Amravati Pan : Ajnpv 0584 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282ASection 292B

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee press the ground of appeal regarding the validity of notice issued

MAMTA SANJAY DAND,BULDHANA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMGAON, BULDHANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymamta Sanjay Dand, Ito, Ward – 1, Khamgaon Akdo Jain Society, Vs Near Govind Nagar, At Post Malkhapur, Dist. Buldhana, Maharashtra-443101 Pan : Azgpd 6958 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. ITA No. 137/NAG/20245 (Mamta Sanjay Dand) 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and did not file her return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL vs. PIYUSH TUSHAR PARALIKAR, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/NAG/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward-1, Yavatmal Piyush Tushar Paralikar, Vs 9, Radha Raman Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Maharashtra-445001 Pan : Asepp 6032 D Revenue Assessee Assessee By : Shri Krish Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri Krish Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

144B of the Act dated 23.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence furnished during appellate proceedings without following the due procedure laid down in rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 395/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

144B. Against the said order dated 19.02.2022, the Assessee filed an appeal before the C.1.T(A), NFAC on 14.04.2022. The Ld. C.I.T (A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal by his order dated 31.10.2023. It is against this order passed by the Ld. C.I.T (A) that the present appeal is before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2] The Appellant-Assessee herein

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA ,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 396/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

144B. Against the said order dated 19.02.2022, the Assessee filed an appeal before the C.1.T(A), NFAC on 14.04.2022. The Ld. C.I.T (A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal by his order dated 31.10.2023. It is against this order passed by the Ld. C.I.T (A) that the present appeal is before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2] The Appellant-Assessee herein