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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi199Mumbai140Ahmedabad83Bangalore61Chennai61Hyderabad50Jaipur47Kolkata36Patna18Allahabad13Chandigarh11Indore9Nagpur8Jodhpur6Surat6Guwahati5Pune5Lucknow5Amritsar5SC4Cochin4Karnataka4Agra4Rajkot3Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Raipur2Telangana2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)20Section 1487Section 2746Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Penalty4Section 1473Section 32(1)(iia)3Reassessment3Reopening of Assessment

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

276-C of the Act. 5 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 6. In the pertaining facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and in view of the afore-discussed exposition of law applicable, the judgements cited by the appellant for the case in hand are all distinguishable because they are rendered on different factual matrix or they proceeded

2
Bogus Purchases2

VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALJI CHORDIYA,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1075/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)

276/- in the return of income filed for A.Y 2012-13. So from above facts it is clear that the total receipts by the assessee, amounting to Rs.3,16,38,294/-, is not commensurate with the gross receipts shown in the return of income. Hence I am satisfied that the receipts at Rs.3

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

BIPIN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment proceedings in both the impugned assessment years, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases by assessee from alleged Hawala dealers. In assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,64,777/- and in assessment year 2010-11 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,09,276/- for similar reasons. In both the assessment

BIPIN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1142/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment proceedings in both the impugned assessment years, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases by assessee from alleged Hawala dealers. In assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,64,777/- and in assessment year 2010-11 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,09,276/- for similar reasons. In both the assessment