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.

6 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai59Delhi30Indore21Raipur19Chennai12Kolkata11Bangalore9Jaipur9Pune6Jodhpur6Ahmedabad3Allahabad3Cochin3Cuttack3Hyderabad3Patna1Jabalpur1Gauhati1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 2508Section 194C5Deduction5Section 1444Section 1484Reopening of Assessment4Addition to Income4Revision u/s 263

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1765/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

194C of the Act, the Ld. AO for the reason recorded in paras 8.1 to 10 of 3 ITA No.1765/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 the assessment order added Rs.1,66,56,027/- (8% of Rs.20,82,00,336/-) to the Nil income returned by the assessee by holding as under : “13. In view of continued non response from the assessee

4
Section 1473
Section 144B3
Reassessment3

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1764/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act by holding as under : “13. In view of continued non response from the assessee, and also considering the nature of business of the assessee being civil contract, the net profit of the assessee is estimated 8% of the entire gross receipt. The gross receipts from contracts is Rs.7

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 885/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 884/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 883/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1123/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 263

194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read