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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67 Delhi49 Chennai37 Raipur21 Indore21 Chandigarh20 Jaipur20 Ahmedabad18 Kolkata17 Bangalore14 Cochin10 Pune9 Visakhapatnam8 Dehradun7 Jodhpur6 Cuttack5 Allahabad5 Hyderabad3 Surat2 Patna2 Ranchi1 SC1 Nagpur1 Gauhati1 Jabalpur1 Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 26316 Section 14410 Section 69A9 Section 2508 Section 153A8 Addition to Income7 Section 194C5 Deduction5 Section 1484 Reopening of Assessment

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 885/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray

Section 194CSection 263

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 884/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed

4

Revision u/s 2634

ITAT Pune

12 May 2022

AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray

Section 194CSection 263

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 883/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray

Section 194CSection 263

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

194C of the Act. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. AO in his remand report. We also observe that the Ld. AO has estimated income @ 25% on ad hoc basis on the entire deposits including the receipts on which the TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation as contended

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

194C of the Act. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. AO in his remand report. We also observe that the Ld. AO has estimated income @ 25% on ad hoc basis on the entire deposits including the receipts on which the TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation as contended

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

194C of the Act. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. AO in his remand report. We also observe that the Ld. AO has estimated income @ 25% on ad hoc basis on the entire deposits including the receipts on which the TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation as contended

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

ITA 1764/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

Section 194C r.ws 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 4. The assessee challenged the ex-parte order before the Ld. CIT(A). Although the appeal was filed late by 14 days, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance of notices of hearing dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The relevant

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

ITA 1765/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

194C of the Act, the Ld. AO for the reason recorded in paras 8.1 to 10 of 3 ITA No.1765/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 the assessment order added Rs.1,66,56,027/- (8% of Rs.20,82,00,336/-) to the Nil income returned by the assessee by holding as under : “13. In view of continued non response from the assessee

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1123/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 263

section 263 revision actions only. 7. We now advert to the Assessing Officer identical reopening reasons forming subject matter of challenge in this additional substantive ground. Page No. 34 in assessee’s paper book contains the reopening reasons for AY 2006-07 as under : “On verification of the records for A.Y. 2006-07 in case of the above mentioned assessee