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.

92 results for “reassessment”+ Section 72(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,306Mumbai1,199Chennai346Bangalore346Jaipur312Ahmedabad268Hyderabad193Kolkata178Chandigarh140Indore98Raipur93Pune92Surat87Cochin77Visakhapatnam77Rajkot75Amritsar68Lucknow44Telangana43Guwahati41Nagpur40Karnataka37Dehradun27Cuttack27Allahabad16Jodhpur15SC12Ranchi11Agra8Patna7Orissa6Varanasi6Calcutta5Rajasthan4Kerala3Panaji2Punjab & Haryana1Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 148139Section 143(3)92Section 14767Addition to Income59Section 12A37Section 143(2)32Reassessment32Section 1125Section 26325Section 10(20)

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

72,286/- as IT Support Services and the same was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further held that the said receipts paid to the assessee were in the nature of Royalty and Fees for Technical Services and taxable in India as per Article 12 of DTAA of India and Sweden as well as section 9(1

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5

24
Deduction24
Disallowance20
ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

72,286/- as IT Support Services and the same was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further held that the said receipts paid to the assessee were in the nature of Royalty and Fees for Technical Services and taxable in India as per Article 12 of DTAA of India and Sweden as well as section 9(1

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)

72,286/- as IT Support Services and the same was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further held that the said receipts paid to the assessee were in the nature of Royalty and Fees for Technical Services and taxable in India as per Article 12 of DTAA of India and Sweden as well as section 9(1

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, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Hon. Court held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 147, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice under Section 148 and allowed the petition of the assessee. (Relevant paragraphs 16 to 24). • In the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT

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)

72 ITD 474. In all cases the gist is like this "Simply because assessee agreed to addition of concealed income after detection thereof and filed return in response to enquiry conducted by department, assessee cannot escape from penalty u/s 271(1)(c)' Moreover, The Supreme court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no retum of income has been furnished 72[or where return has been fumished for the first time under section 148]; (c) the income reassessed

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
Section 35A

1) whereas in MB India's case, the deduction is claimed under section 35AB which was introduced later in the point of time due to change in intention of the Government (to attract flow of technology into India) to allow deduction for such payments. In MB India's case, the transfer of technical know-how for consideration (between MB India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

1) whereas in MB India's case, the deduction is claimed under section 35AB which was introduced later in the point of time due to change in intention of the Government (to attract flow of technology into India) to allow deduction for such payments. In MB India's case, the transfer of technical know-how for consideration (between MB India

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

1) whereas in MB India's case, the deduction is claimed under section 35AB which was introduced later in the point of time due to change in intention of the Government (to attract flow of technology into India) to allow deduction for such payments. In MB India's case, the transfer of technical know-how for consideration (between MB India

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2396/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

1) and sub- section (2) for the completion of assessment, reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2399/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

1) and sub- section (2) for the completion of assessment, reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2398/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

1) and sub- section (2) for the completion of assessment, reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2397/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

1) and sub- section (2) for the completion of assessment, reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1279/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr CD Upasani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

reassessment jurisdiction owning to provisions of section 139(1)(b) of the Act. This is more so when addition on this later ground/item i.e. interest did not individually exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax i.e. ₹2,50,000/-. Therefore, for the purpose of ITAT-Pune Page 13 of 16 Subhash Runwal Vs ITO ITA No. 1279/PUN/2024

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Sneha M. PadhiarFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari & Abdhesh Kumar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1640/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

1 is against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case, during the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), in the case of Mayuri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2010-11, it was seen

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1639/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

1 is against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case, during the course of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), in the case of Mayuri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2010-11, it was seen

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case