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.

256 results for “reassessment”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,482Mumbai1,477Jaipur473Ahmedabad446Bangalore439Chennai344Kolkata340Pune256Hyderabad232Indore142Rajkot134Raipur124Chandigarh122Surat99Cuttack92Cochin72Amritsar70Agra64Ranchi63Nagpur60Lucknow53Patna50Guwahati49Dehradun43Visakhapatnam41Karnataka41Allahabad29SC24Jodhpur22Telangana21Jabalpur11Panaji11Calcutta6Varanasi5Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Rajasthan1J&K1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 148200Section 147134Addition to Income71Section 25058Section 143(3)54Penalty46Reassessment45Section 270A41Section 271(1)(c)40Section 69A

M/S. MORE CONSTRUCTIONS,,NANDED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OFINCOME TAX, NANDED CIRCLE,, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1878/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 139Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty as confirmed by the learned C.I.T.[A] is bad in law and devoid of merits and hence the same may please be deleted. 3. The learned C.I.T.[A] has failed to appreciate that in the reassessment

RAMESHWAR RAMVILAS SARDA ,PUNE vs. ITO 14(3), PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 256 · Page 1 of 13

...
31
Reopening of Assessment31
Section 143(2)26

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

ITA 1462/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

penalty before conclusion of the assessment or reassessment proceedings and further conclusion is arrived at about a impugned transactions is income

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2732/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment has become final without further addition. However, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act giving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2731/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment has become final without further addition. However, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act giving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2733/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment has become final without further addition. However, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act giving

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD.2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1692/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty as it rested upon invalid reassessment which was void ab-initio.” 4. Subsequently, the assessee has raised the following

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1694/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty as it rested upon invalid reassessment which was void ab-initio.” 4. Subsequently, the assessee has raised the following

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1693/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty as it rested upon invalid reassessment which was void ab-initio.” 4. Subsequently, the assessee has raised the following

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1335/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos. 1334 & 1335/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 148Section 271Section 274

penalty order is based on the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without fulfilling the mandatory

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1334/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos. 1334 & 1335/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 148Section 271Section 274

penalty order is based on the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without fulfilling the mandatory

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2088/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty without any corroborating evidence whatsoever and merely on the basis of voluntary disclosure made by the Appellant by Revising his Return of Income. (d) The Appellant has co-operated with the department by paying all the taxes along with interest voluntarily before the initiation of reassessment

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271D of the Act do not survive once the assessment is held to be invalid. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 9 to 10.1 read as under: “9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the reassessment

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section

M/S. BORSE BROTHERS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, all three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2707/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” There is no addition in reassessment order on account of amortization expenses

M/S. BORSE BROTHERS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, all three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2706/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” There is no addition in reassessment order on account of amortization expenses

M/S. BORSE BROTHERS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, all three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2705/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” There is no addition in reassessment order on account of amortization expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was also imposed at Rs.72,93,114/-. The assessee has not preferred further appeal against the quantum reassessment