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.

74 results for “reassessment”+ Section 9(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,510Mumbai997Bangalore332Chennai320Jaipur274Ahmedabad227Kolkata188Chandigarh167Hyderabad156Indore85Pune74Amritsar63Raipur62Guwahati54Surat53Nagpur52Cochin46Cuttack36Rajkot36Agra35Patna33Karnataka33Visakhapatnam32Lucknow30Jodhpur24Allahabad22Telangana22Ranchi13SC11Dehradun9Orissa5Calcutta5Panaji4Kerala2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14878Section 14764Section 143(3)46Addition to Income45Section 13232Section 143(2)29Section 13128Section 148A27Section 153A26Reopening of Assessment

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)

vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further holds that on examination of nature of payments made to the assessee as per agreement dated 01.04.2002, it could be concluded that the payments received by the assessee constitute royalty and fees for technical services, CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 as per sections of the Act as well as Article 12 of the DTAA

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

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

26
Deduction25
Reassessment19
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)

vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further holds that on examination of nature of payments made to the assessee as per agreement dated 01.04.2002, it could be concluded that the payments received by the assessee constitute royalty and fees for technical services, CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 as per sections of the Act as well as Article 12 of the DTAA

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)

reassessment proceedings initiated are invalid and void and hence be quashed. 3. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly pointed out ‘yes’ that the issue raised in Cross Objections is against reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee took us through factual aspects of the case and pointed

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

9. So far as the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same since he has deleted the addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 432/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

vii) of the Act. A retrospective amendment could not create a liability to deduct tax u/s.195 r.w.s 40(a)(i) as it was impossible to discharge such liability. In view of this the assessment reopened under S.147 for non-deduction of tax inconsonance with S.195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) was invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

vii) of the Act. A retrospective amendment could not create a liability to deduct tax u/s.195 r.w.s 40(a)(i) as it was impossible to discharge such liability. In view of this the assessment reopened under S.147 for non-deduction of tax inconsonance with S.195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) was invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

vii) of the Act. A retrospective amendment could not create a liability to deduct tax u/s.195 r.w.s 40(a)(i) as it was impossible to discharge such liability. In view of this the assessment reopened under S.147 for non-deduction of tax inconsonance with S.195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) was invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

vii) of the Act. A retrospective amendment could not create a liability to deduct tax u/s.195 r.w.s 40(a)(i) as it was impossible to discharge such liability. In view of this the assessment reopened under S.147 for non-deduction of tax inconsonance with S.195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) was invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed

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

9 to Shivchand Parakh, partner of 12/209 to 211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private Ltd. of Thakkar Group of Nashik vide agreement dt. 25th April 2013. Necessary documents were also executed

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)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 1324, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

1) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in reopening the case, by issuing notice on 20.03.2023 under section 148 in person by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the same is required to be issued in a faceless manner as per Notification No.18 dated 29.03.2022 and hence the assessment

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1265/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1264/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1268/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1262/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1269/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The findings made in the assessment order are summarized below. i. A search and seizure action was conducted on 26.09.2017 in the case of Shri Yuvraj

RITVIK SANDEEP KOLATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 610/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

vii)(b) of the Act. This sum represents difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price and stamp value of the corresponding capital asset. Sec.149(1)(a), amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021 vide Finance Act, 2021 admittedly prescribes limitation of three to ten years under clause (b) thereof subject to a rider that the “income which has escaped assessment amounts