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.

5 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 184clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi236Mumbai109Jaipur68Bangalore62Ahmedabad36Raipur35Chandigarh28Lucknow21Hyderabad18Kolkata14Amritsar14Indore12Surat12Chennai10Cochin7Guwahati5Pune5Allahabad4Dehradun3Nagpur3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam2Patna2Rajkot2Jabalpur1Agra1Karnataka1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 408Section 1487Section 80I7Section 270A7Section 143(3)6Section 1473Section 2633Reassessment3Deduction3

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

Section 2(22)(e)2
Addition to Income2
Disallowance2

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)

184/-. The penalty under sub-section (7) of section 270A of the Act was levied for disallowance of employees contribution u/s 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ZEAL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri P.S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 40

184/- to M/s. Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on which appellant failed to deduct TDS as per provisions of section 194A of the IT Act. The AO noted that non deduction of TDS was violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) therefore, it was not an allowable expenses. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment proceeding u/s 147

KARAN TEJRAJ BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 , PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 428/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

For Appellant: Shri S.N.PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 80I

184/-. In the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee, the sale of flat to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- was not recorded by the assessee and the same was only unearthed during the course of search action. 5. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 263 dated 27.12.2019 was issued and duly served on the assessee firm. In response to that

VIJAYSHREE ALLOYS PUNE PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1049/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 2(22)(e)

184/- on account of melting loss. ii. Addition of Rs.1,10,16,848/- on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. iii. Addition of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of premium paid under Keyman Insurance Policy. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of aluminium ingots. During manufacturing process there is generation