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 u/s 147”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai66Hyderabad36Delhi35Jaipur24Mumbai21Surat20Bangalore19Ahmedabad17Jodhpur10Patna9Rajkot9Pune7Indore5Chandigarh5Agra4Amritsar3Raipur3Lucknow2Kolkata2Visakhapatnam2Jabalpur1Cuttack1Nagpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14712Section 1489Cash Deposit7Addition to Income7Section 2506Section 69A6Section 80P5Section 80A3Section 142(1)

GEETANJALI ANIL KANKREJ,KOPARGAON vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1104/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1104/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Geetanjali Anil Kankrej, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, M/S. Kishor Wines, Jadhav Ahmednagar. Building, Dharangaon Road, Tal. Kopargaon- 423109. Pan : Agxpk9352L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Valid In Law In Absence Of Reason To Believe That Any Income Has Escaped Assessment When The Ld Ao Himself States That Notice U/S 148 Is Issued To Verify & Make Enquiry

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 valid in law in absence of any tangible material to indicate any escapement of income in the hands of the appellant. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld AO having accepted the fact that cash deposit in bank account has been duly disclosed and return of income being duly filed, the reopening

3
Section 143(3)3
Unexplained Money3
Reopening of Assessment3

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 1272/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 1271/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1385/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

u/s 147 of the IT Act. Its main argument is that the Assessing Officer did not carry out any independent verification before reopening the assessment proceedings and therefore, the 147 proceedings should be declared null and void. 4.2.2 I have gone through the objection of the appellant. It is clear that the Assessing Officer had received specific information that

ADESH BHUJANGRAO NAGAWADE,SHRIGONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 71/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

147 r.w.s 144 dated 30.03.2022. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the notice under section 148 has been issued by the Ld. Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

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

ITA 2156/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 asking the assessee to file the return of income, in response thereto. The assessee however, did not file any return in response to the said notice

BAGLAN PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MALEGAON

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

ITA 358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

demonetization period, as he was satisfied with explanation offered during the course of reassessment proceedings, other additions are not permissible as per the provisions of section 147, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (BOM). 2 2. On the facts