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.

142 results for “reassessment”+ Section 36(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,729Mumbai1,530Chennai598Bangalore510Jaipur440Ahmedabad319Hyderabad264Kolkata203Chandigarh192Pune142Amritsar123Indore117Raipur103Visakhapatnam102Surat76Cochin63Rajkot62Guwahati56Nagpur56Karnataka51Cuttack49Lucknow48Telangana43Patna43Allahabad38Jodhpur31Ranchi29Dehradun28Agra27SC21Orissa9Jabalpur8Calcutta7Varanasi4Kerala3Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji3Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96Section 14890Section 14767Addition to Income63Section 13244Reassessment42Reopening of Assessment39Section 143(1)34Section 153A34Section 263

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer [„Ld.AO‟] in reopening the assessment proceedings without any „reason to believe‟ as required by the provisions of section 147. It is prayed that the reassessment

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
33
Section 14A32
Disallowance29

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

v. DCIT/ACIT (Amritsar ITAT) (2024) 6. Mr. Nilesh Bharani vs DCIT CC 4(1) Mumbai (2023) Taxcorp (AT) 103442 (ITAT-Mumbai) 14. He submitted that it is the settled proposition of law that section 153C of the Act is a complete code for cases of ‘other persons’ where seized material belongs 13 CO No.43/PUN/2025 to them and therefore, resort

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported under sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act. 5.2 For the purpose of evaluating

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 to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

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)

36 before the Hon'ble ITAT in support of the claim of the appellant that in view of the facts of the appellant's case as the income voluntarily declared in the Revised return of income had been accepted by the Assessing Officer and assessed as such in the assessment order, no penalty in assessee's u/s 271(1

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 469/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court have held as under: "The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year faling within the six isolation and not in the context of the entire section. The words 'assess

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 467/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court have held as under: "The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year faling within the six isolation and not in the context of the entire section. The words 'assess

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 468/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court have held as under: "The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year faling within the six isolation and not in the context of the entire section. The words 'assess

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 729/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 727/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 731/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 734/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 732/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 726/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 730/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 725/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 735/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

36 lakhs from two LIC policies and re-invested in six policies of ₹ 6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes