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.

4 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi368Mumbai164Jaipur72Chandigarh64Chennai50Bangalore47Raipur38Kolkata30Ahmedabad28Guwahati17Amritsar13Hyderabad12Surat9Indore8Lucknow8Agra4Rajkot4Patna3Pune3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Panaji1Nagpur1Karnataka1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 25017Section 1488Section 1477Section 148A5Limitation/Time-bar3Section 682Section 234A2Section 271(1)(c)2Penalty

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

ITA 519/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.05.2023 is bad in law and both the notices and the orders deserve to be quashed. 9. The sequence of dates, in ITA No.521/RJT/2025 for assessment year 2014–15, are reproduced below: ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

2
Addition to Income2
Condonation of Delay2
ITA 521/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
09 Feb 2026
AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.05.2023 is bad in law and both the notices and the orders deserve to be quashed. 9. The sequence of dates, in ITA No.521/RJT/2025 for assessment year 2014–15, are reproduced below: ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai

M/S. SHREEDHAR CONSTRUCTION ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 542/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ahimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 is bad-in-law. a. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. b. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Jassessing officer) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (Fassessing officer) lacks of jurisdiction. c. The order u/s 148A

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

ITA 13/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.24,00,000/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee had duly discharged the primary onus by furnishing ledger confirmations, ITR acknowledgements