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.

8 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai252Kolkata72Jaipur69Delhi60Ahmedabad57Guwahati24Pune21Bangalore18Surat18Rajkot15Chennai13Lucknow12Chandigarh11Indore9Raipur8Patna6Visakhapatnam5Amritsar4Hyderabad3Ranchi2Cuttack1Nagpur1Calcutta1Gauhati1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 10(38)10Section 2639Capital Gains5Addition to Income5Penny Stock5Section 1474Long Term Capital Gains4Section 68

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 94/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

147 is not in the statute w.e.f. 01-04-2021, any order passed under this section will be illegal. 6. In this respect we also rely in the decision of Indore ITAT bench (Jurisdictional bench) in the case of Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma vs. ACIT- 3(1) ITA No.889/Ind/2018 covering various appeals wherein it was held that (attached as Annexure

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

3
Section 142(1)3
Exemption3
Survey u/s 133A2
ITA 93/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

147 is not in the statute w.e.f. 01-04-2021, any order passed under this section will be illegal. 6. In this respect we also rely in the decision of Indore ITAT bench (Jurisdictional bench) in the case of Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma vs. ACIT- 3(1) ITA No.889/Ind/2018 covering various appeals wherein it was held that (attached as Annexure

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 92/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

147 is not in the statute w.e.f. 01-04-2021, any order passed under this section will be illegal. 6. In this respect we also rely in the decision of Indore ITAT bench (Jurisdictional bench) in the case of Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma vs. ACIT- 3(1) ITA No.889/Ind/2018 covering various appeals wherein it was held that (attached as Annexure

HIMANSHU GOYAL,DHAMTARI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

ITA 144/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2019 12 and accepted the returned income. It was further stated by the ld. AR that the ld. Pr.CIT subsequently has observed that the DDIT (Inv). Unit- 2(l), Kolkata has sent another information stating that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry in trading in a penny stock company namely

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

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

ITA 268/RPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.268/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 30-03-2022 by making additions viz. (i) addition on 5 ITO-1(3), Bhilai Vs. Ramandeep Singh Sohi account of bogus LTCG u/s.69A of the Act : Rs.26,41,000/-; and (ii) addition u/s.69C of the Act for commission paid for accommodation entry: Rs.1,32,500/- and determining total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

147 r.w.s. 144B on 27.03.2023. The same is impugned here and hence this appeal order. 5.5. The grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal are with respect to the addition of Rs.2,04,23,038/- which is the crux of the dispute also; are taken up together as under: “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

147 r.w.s. 144B on 27.03.2023. The same is impugned here and hence this appeal order. 5.5. The grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal are with respect to the addition of Rs.2,04,23,038/- which is the crux of the dispute also; are taken up together as under: “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition

YOGESH GOYAL,DHAMTARI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations hereinabove,

ITA 57/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2019 and accepted the returned income. It was further stated by the ld. AR that the ld. Pr.CIT subsequently has observed that the DDIT (Inv). Unit-2(l), Kolkata has sent another information stating that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry in trading in a penny stock company namely