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.

2 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 272A(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai21Chennai14Delhi13Pune9Kolkata5Hyderabad5Jaipur3SC2Bangalore2Chandigarh2Patna2Raipur2Rajkot2Nagpur2Indore1Ahmedabad1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1486Section 143(3)4Section 1392Section 1472Unexplained Investment2Exemption2Addition to Income2

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI

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

ITA 148/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. I.T.A No. 148/Rjt/2021 & 09/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Page No 5 Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

ITA 9/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. I.T.A No. 148/Rjt/2021 & 09/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Page No 5 Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition