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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai53Delhi19Kolkata11Pune7Jaipur6Cuttack4Nagpur4Indore2Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Rajkot1Chennai1Hyderabad1Karnataka1Patna1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 14711Section 56(2)11Addition to Income6Section 15Reassessment5Section 1484Section 143(3)3Section 143(1)2Reopening of Assessment2

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56(2) (viib

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed
ITAT Pune
07 Apr 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56(2) (viib

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56(2) (viib

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56(2) (viib

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56(2) (viib

SURESH VITTHALRAO BARGE,BEED vs. WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 1398/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

56(2)(viib) applicable to stock in trade. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 47,74,213/- under the head income from other sources. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that appellant is not carrying a business

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Section 80IA/IB of the Act.\nIt must follow that there is due application of mind by the Assessing\nOfficer to the issue raised.\nThe above observations apply on all fours to this Petition, so far as the\nRevenue's submission of no change of opinion is concerned.\n11. The further submission of Mr. Walve that in the absence