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.

113 results for “reassessment”+ Section 139(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,817Mumbai1,223Bangalore555Chennai539Jaipur527Kolkata377Hyderabad312Ahmedabad264Chandigarh192Pune178Indore157Visakhapatnam145Amritsar113Rajkot113Surat108Raipur105Cochin89Patna72Nagpur68Guwahati65Lucknow52Karnataka49Agra40Allahabad38Cuttack38Telangana36Jodhpur30Dehradun19SC17Panaji16Ranchi14Jabalpur7Calcutta5Rajasthan4Orissa3Varanasi3Punjab & Haryana3Kerala2Gauhati1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 147112Section 148111Section 153A95Section 26387Section 143(3)81Addition to Income51Reopening of Assessment27Section 142(1)26Cash Deposit21

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

ITA 31/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment as the case may be. In case AO has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 7 13. Now coming to second question whether the notice under section 143(2) issued beyond the statutory time limit provided

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6

Section 143(2)20
Reassessment19
Section 25018

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

ITA 32/RJT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment as the case may be. In case AO has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 7 13. Now coming to second question whether the notice under section 143(2) issued beyond the statutory time limit provided

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi , A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23A

9 5,83,333.00 under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. The reason of making the addition was based on the proceedings before the ADIT (Inv) as mentioned in the assessment order. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: Unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. During the earlier proceedings before ADIT(Inv) the assessee has accepted total profits

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi , A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23A

9 5,83,333.00 under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. The reason of making the addition was based on the proceedings before the ADIT (Inv) as mentioned in the assessment order. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: Unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. During the earlier proceedings before ADIT(Inv) the assessee has accepted total profits

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi , A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23A

9 5,83,333.00 under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. The reason of making the addition was based on the proceedings before the ADIT (Inv) as mentioned in the assessment order. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: Unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. During the earlier proceedings before ADIT(Inv) the assessee has accepted total profits

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi , A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23A

9 5,83,333.00 under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. The reason of making the addition was based on the proceedings before the ADIT (Inv) as mentioned in the assessment order. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: Unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. During the earlier proceedings before ADIT(Inv) the assessee has accepted total profits

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

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

ITA 30/RJT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254Section 69

139 of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 9,41,230/. Subsequently, the return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 10-09-2014. Finally, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 10,41,230/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Act dated

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 274/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 288/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 273/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 178/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 275/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 287/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 177/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 289/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 290/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

9% in respect of unrecorded sales/receipt amounting to Rs. 17,39,72,425/-, which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed