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.

2 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 200(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi565Mumbai400Jaipur162Chennai160Hyderabad123Bangalore120Ahmedabad100Pune67Raipur65Chandigarh61Surat56Kolkata51Indore43Visakhapatnam32Cuttack31Allahabad30Telangana24Rajkot21Lucknow21Cochin18Jodhpur12Dehradun10Patna10Agra10Amritsar8Guwahati6Orissa4Nagpur2Panaji2Karnataka2Ranchi1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 56(2)(vii)5Section 1484Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of Stamp Duty Valuation ` 7,58,97,000 of Property Less: Purchase Cost (–) ` 1,53,02,000 Balance ` 6,05,95,000 50% share (Addition made) ` 3,02,97,500 The assessee was not satisfied with the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, hence approached first appellate authority for redressal

M/S SHREE SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. CIT-IV,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 292/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

200/-. It is therefore very incorrect to say that the assessing officer examined 5 M/s. Shree Saibaba Construction only 20% of purchases. This is only a presumption that only partly URD purchases were examined. Alternatively, even otherwise there is a presumption that when an order is u/s 143 (3) is made the ITO has examined all aspects and the order