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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 256(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi441Mumbai401Jaipur160Bangalore85Kolkata79Ahmedabad69Chennai59Raipur36Nagpur28Chandigarh22Lucknow21Surat20Cochin19Hyderabad18Amritsar15Telangana14Cuttack13Pune13Indore12Rajkot9Patna8Dehradun7Allahabad6Guwahati6Agra5SC4Jodhpur4Visakhapatnam3Ranchi2Karnataka2Panaji1Orissa1Uttarakhand1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14821Section 143(3)20Section 271(1)(c)15Section 14712Addition to Income11Section 4010Section 133A9Section 1958Section 201(1)8Disallowance

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A
8
Reopening of Assessment8
Reassessment7

reassessment proceedings the assessee has claimed that he is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act as he has utilized 50% share of the sale consideration from sale of urban agricultural land for purchase of another agricultural land within a period of two years from the date of sale of land. The assessee claim of having invested Rs. 1

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1164/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 9

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1163/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 9

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

256 ITR 673 has held that the act or omission for which no additional income A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 tax was payable as per law in force at a given time cannot be subjected to additional taxation with retrospective effect specially when the imprint of penalty is ex-facie visible in the amended provision

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

256 ITR 673 has held that the act or omission for which no additional income A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 tax was payable as per law in force at a given time cannot be subjected to additional taxation with retrospective effect specially when the imprint of penalty is ex-facie visible in the amended provision

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

256 ITR 673 has held that the act or omission for which no additional income A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 tax was payable as per law in force at a given time cannot be subjected to additional taxation with retrospective effect specially when the imprint of penalty is ex-facie visible in the amended provision

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 432/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

256 ITR 673 has held that the act or omission for which no additional income A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 tax was payable as per law in force at a given time cannot be subjected to additional taxation with retrospective effect specially when the imprint of penalty is ex-facie visible in the amended provision

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

reassessment proceedings? Further it is requested that: 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. it is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed. 2. The assessee has also raised the additional grounds of appeal which is as follows : 1. Additional grounds: This is in substitution of Additional

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

reassessment notice as the AO has not established that new facts material or information came the knowledge of the AO which was not on record and available at the time of assessment. It is clear that on account of the audit objection that a remedial action of reopening the assessment by an action u/s 148 of the Act was taken

KENERSYS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 943/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

256 ITR 1 has held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on Rs.2,22,00,712 being unexplained purchases. .......” Similar lines mentioned by the Assessing Officer in para 8 of the penalty order for the assessment year 2010-11. 7. The CIT(A) deleted the said penalty in both the appeals of the Revenue relying on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on Rs.2,22,00,712 being unexplained purchases. .......” Similar lines mentioned by the Assessing Officer in para 8 of the penalty order for the assessment year 2010-11. 7. The CIT(A) deleted the said penalty in both the appeals of the Revenue relying on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on Rs.2,22,00,712 being unexplained purchases. .......” Similar lines mentioned by the Assessing Officer in para 8 of the penalty order for the assessment year 2010-11. 7. The CIT(A) deleted the said penalty in both the appeals of the Revenue relying on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal