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.

96 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai971Delhi832Chennai332Jaipur313Bangalore257Ahmedabad250Kolkata159Chandigarh154Hyderabad153Raipur115Pune96Surat83Amritsar72Indore71Rajkot65Visakhapatnam45Cuttack44Cochin39Lucknow37Patna36Nagpur34Allahabad31Telangana29Guwahati24Jodhpur21Agra11Dehradun10Karnataka8Orissa3Ranchi3Varanasi2Panaji1SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 148139Section 14799Section 143(3)75Addition to Income69Reassessment46Section 271(1)(c)40Section 12A37Section 6828Section 250

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)

147 passed for the year. Therefore, as per provisions of section 270A(3)(1)(b)(A), quantum of „Under reported income' in hands of appellant will be „Income assessed‟ i,e Rs 24,70,490/- in the present case. 7.7 It is noticed that AO has levied penalty for misreporting of income u/s 270A(9). Section 270A(9) prescribes instances

Showing 1–20 of 96 · Page 1 of 5

26
Section 1125
Reopening of Assessment23
Deduction20

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDING P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1667/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

reassessment proceedings got abated on issue of notice under section 153A(i) of the Act. It further be held that the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in concluding that issue of notice u/s 153A(i) for the year under consideration is void-ab-initio. The assessment framed by the AO and that confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) u/s

BRIJENDRA NATH AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1666/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

reassessment proceedings got abated on issue of notice under section 153A(i) of the Act. It further be held that the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in concluding that issue of notice u/s 153A(i) for the year under consideration is void-ab-initio. The assessment framed by the AO and that confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) u/s

GULAMAHEMAD HAMIDULLA KHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

ITA 165/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

section 147 as inserted by finance act 2021, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on M/s Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 4. On the facts

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

70 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that as per the said decision the due date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as applicable to the instant case is 31.03.2022, however the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 and thus said notice issued by the Ld. JAO/AO u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

70,80,000/- 7,18,81,584/- AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 5. It would be seen from the above that the assessee had declared the cost of investment at Rs.2,57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

70,80,000/- 7,18,81,584/- AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 5. It would be seen from the above that the assessee had declared the cost of investment at Rs.2,57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

ITA 1453/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Section 69C of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,52,62,200 and Rs.9,15,732 respectively thereby confirming the assessed income to the tune of Rs.3,41,20,562/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,79,42,630/- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI (HUF),,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 327/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 6Section 68

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act, is fairly settled. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the express provisions provided in Section 147/148 of the Act. It is only on the Assessing Officer strictly satisfying the provisions of Section 147

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 325/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 6Section 68

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act, is fairly settled. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the express provisions provided in Section 147/148 of the Act. It is only on the Assessing Officer strictly satisfying the provisions of Section 147

SAFEPACK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2376/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 80HSection 80I

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee unsuccessfully objected to the initiation of re-assessment. The AO completed the assessment by reducing the amount of deduction u/s. 80HHC to Rs.5,66,035/- as against the original claim of the assessee at Rs.9,46,897/- Reduction in the amount of deduction took place not only on account of reducing

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

ITA 1618/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

70 (SC). Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the issue involved in the 5 instant case is squarely covered in his favour and therefore Ld. AR requested before the bench to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI (HUF),,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1743/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act, is fairly settled. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the express provisions provided in Section 147/148 of the Act. It is only on the Assessing Officer strictly satisfying the provisions of Section 147

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI (HUF),,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1740/PUN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1740, 1741, 1742 & 1743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / A. Ys. : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadhk3800M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration. All The Four Appeals Are Directed Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act, is fairly settled. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the express provisions provided in Section 147/148 of the Act. It is only on the Assessing Officer strictly satisfying the provisions of Section 147