Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

105 results for “reassessment”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,547 Mumbai1,193 Chennai435 Bangalore415 Jaipur321 Hyderabad239 Kolkata218 Ahmedabad208 Chandigarh120 Pune105 Raipur74 Karnataka73 Amritsar73 Indore62 Cochin58 Cuttack54 Nagpur53 Guwahati49 Agra47 Surat45 Rajkot42 Lucknow41 Visakhapatnam36 Telangana36 Patna32 Allahabad28 Calcutta22 Ranchi18 Jodhpur14 Dehradun14 Jabalpur10 SC9 Orissa5 Rajasthan4 Gauhati3 Kerala2 Panaji2 Varanasi1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 132(4)65 Section 143(3)63 Section 13246 Bogus Purchases45 Section 14743 Addition to Income41 Section 153C37 Section 12A30 Reopening of Assessment23

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

ITA 977/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assess or reassess the 'total income'\nfor the entire six years block assessment period. The intention does\nnot seem to be to re-open

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

Section 10(20)20

Search & Seizure19

ITAT Pune

08 Jan 2026

AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

block assessment under section 153A and in case ofunabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during thesearch, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1688/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PANVEL CIRCLE ,, PANVEL vs. BALRAJ SINGH MANDER,, RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. VIRAJ STEELS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2591/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

KBK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1977/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHANDRASHEKHAR ASHOK JOSHI,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

G.V. PUNTAMBEKAR & SONS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2946/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

SS TECHNO LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1404/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. SMT. ARCHANA PRASHANT SANGAI,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1881/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

M/S. VIRAJ STEELS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2307/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

VINAY BADERA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2319/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

HAMADULE ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2373/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

RAJESH UMRAOSINGH PARDESHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2932/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

MADHUBAN TRADE STEELS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used

M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

reassessment and merits of the addition are concerned, the position is similar to the cases discussed above in general manner. 18 Bogus purchases group 26. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional issue by contending that the assessment order requires to be quashed because the AO did not confront the assessee with the adverse material used