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.

297 results for “reassessment”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,552 Mumbai2,352 Chennai705 Bangalore688 Jaipur577 Ahmedabad502 Kolkata472 Hyderabad414 Pune297 Chandigarh251 Amritsar176 Surat174 Indore164 Raipur152 Visakhapatnam143 Rajkot133 Cochin103 Agra90 Patna82 Karnataka81 Cuttack76 Nagpur69 Lucknow67 Guwahati58 Telangana57 Dehradun53 Jodhpur37 SC29 Ranchi25 Allahabad21 Panaji17 Jabalpur11 Orissa10 Calcutta8 Rajasthan6 Kerala6 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Varanasi3 Gauhati1 Punjab & Haryana1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 J&K1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 148135 Section 147105 Addition to Income72 Section 132(4)56 Section 143(3)50 Section 153C39 Section 143(2)35 Section 69A31 Section 148A30 Reopening of Assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin

Showing 1–20 of 297 · Page 1 of 15

...

29

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 20. Sub-section (18) of Section 155 of the Income Tax Act is inserted vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. The above referred provisions provide that deduction of any surcharge, cess, which

PUSHPADEVI SHIVLAL RATHI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD-1, JALNA

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

ITA 1995/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 197Section 250Section 69A

Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was See State of A P v. A P Pensioners Association, (2005) 13 SCC 161 [28

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 835/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

Section 234ASection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

28 of the Act is covered in assessee’s favour as per the hon’ble high court’s Bombay bench holding that the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act as against the Revenue’s contentions that the Aurangabad bench of the very hon’ble jurisdictional high court has taken a divergent view against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1893/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

28 vis-a-vis interest under section 34, additional compensation under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, we allow the civil appeal of the Department with no order as to costs.” 13. Further, I have

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1891/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

28 vis-a-vis interest under section 34, additional compensation under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, we allow the civil appeal of the Department with no order as to costs.” 13. Further, I have

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1892/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

28 vis-a-vis interest under section 34, additional compensation under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, we allow the civil appeal of the Department with no order as to costs.” 13. Further, I have

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 3280/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151oSection 250

reassessment notices will travel back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued…(para 28). It further held that the CBDT in Instruction no. 1/2022 at paragraph 6.2(ii) has wrongly stated that the notices issued under section

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 3281/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151oSection 250

reassessment notices will travel back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued…(para 28). It further held that the CBDT in Instruction no. 1/2022 at paragraph 6.2(ii) has wrongly stated that the notices issued under section

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 79/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

section, record his reasons for doing so." 9. By going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze as to whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KIRTI SOLVEX LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1501/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

28-08-2008. Consequent to the search, assessment was completed for the impugned assessment year on 31-12- 2010. During the course of assessment the Assessing Officer raised doubt over the valuation of factory building. The Assessing Officer made reference to the DVO u/s. 142A of the Act for valuation. Since, the Assessing Officer had not received DVO’s report

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

28,280 53,27,03,640 1,00,32,31,920 11 A.Y.1999-2000 The total amount of Rs.1,00,32,31,920 was claimed as a deduction over the assessment years AY 1995-96 to AY 2001-02 AY Deduction Deduction Deduction under Claimed (Rs.) Allowed (Rs.) dispute

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; g. the income assessed or reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 5.1. Referring to the above clauses, he submitted that assessee does not fall under any of the above clauses

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1642/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

section is not applicable. 3. 270A(2)(c) It is not a case of reassessment, hence not applicable. 4. 270A(2)(d) Sec 115JB/115JC not applicable to assessee, hence subsection is not applicable. 5. 270A(2)(e) Not a case of non filing Return hence not applicable. 6. 270A(2)(f) Provisions of Sec 115JB or 115JC is not applicable

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.‖ ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 28

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.‖ ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 28

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.‖ ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 28