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.

21 results for “reassessment”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai557 Delhi312 Chennai173 Bangalore138 Ahmedabad92 Kolkata69 Hyderabad67 Chandigarh60 Jaipur45 Raipur39 Amritsar29 Visakhapatnam23 Cochin22 Pune21 Lucknow19 Indore13 Nagpur10 Surat9 Karnataka8 Cuttack7 Guwahati5 Rajkot4 Dehradun3 Jodhpur2 SC2 Calcutta1 Jabalpur1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 12A36 Section 14726 Section 10(20)24 Section 1124 Section 143(3)23 Addition to Income17 Section 14815 Section 2(22)(e)13 Reassessment11 Section 56(2)

VIJAYSHREE ALLOYS PUNE PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1049/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend. The ld. AR has pointed that addition u/s.2(22)(e) was made in the hands of Prakash Oswal, Director in reassessment

JAYANT KANERIA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1719/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

10

19 Jul 2022

AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1719/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

reassessed based on the ratio laid down in the above case laws, i.e. deemed dividend, if any, needs to be taxed

ABHIJIT DESHPANDE , PANDIT AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

reassessment order, which was not so ensured in the matter. 3. Appellant contends that there is no reason for taxing the advances made by M/s Pandit Automotive Private Limited to the other three group companies as deemed dividend

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 268/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg & Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

reassessment proceedings for reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the year under appeal. 9) In the facts, circumstances & position of law learned CIT Appeals-II, Nashik erred in confirming the amount of Rs.1,34,39,587/- as deemed dividend

PRAKASH R.OSWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2658/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2658/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Prakash R. Oswal, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411001. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaapo6465D …. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. ""यथ" / Respondent Ward- 5(3), Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar & Shri Rishab Gujrathi : Shri Rajesh Gawali ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2018 Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Sushma Chowla, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Pune Dated 12.06.2017 Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the Assessing Officer made the addition on this account and also made further addition on account of perquisites value of rent free accommodation provided to the assessee. The first issue, on which reassessment

AMIT KANHAYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Amit Kanhayalal Gidwani, C.S.No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli – 416416 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aefpg7955P बनाम / V/S. Acit, ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Sangli

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 288A

Deemed dividend o/a of loan from AIPL to JMCPL: ₹ 36,50,000 Addition o/a of low withdrawals: ₹ 1,00,000 Total Assessed Income: ₹ 1,67,55,515 Rounded off u/s. 288A: ₹ 1,67,55,520 6. None of the above referred additions emanates from the reasons recorded vide page 9 of the Paper Book. Further, he submitted in such factual

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may\nplease be quashed.\nITA Nos.13 to 17/PUN/2024\nM/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd.\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-\nAppeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in\nsustaining/making the addition of Rs.8,96,41,183/- without\nappreciating the real

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

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

ITA 1784/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 69B

dividend income is received which is computed at Rs.6,000/-. 2. erred in treating the income declared amounting to Rs.38,25,000/- in the statement U/s 132(4), under the head “Income from Other Source” as against the Appellant Company’s contention that the same was chargeable under the head “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession” without appreciating

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of „change of opinion‟ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of „change of opinion‟ as an in-built test to check abuse of power

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of „change of opinion‟ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of „change of opinion‟ as an in-built test to check abuse of power