Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

15 results for “reassessment”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,233 Mumbai1,083 Chennai385 Jaipur373 Ahmedabad356 Bangalore327 Hyderabad264 Kolkata258 Pune193 Raipur148 Surat129 Rajkot127 Indore123 Amritsar121 Chandigarh120 Visakhapatnam108 Patna85 Agra71 Cuttack67 Nagpur60 Cochin55 Lucknow54 Guwahati47 Jodhpur36 Allahabad30 Dehradun28 Telangana25 Panaji20 Karnataka17 SC16 Ranchi15 Jabalpur9 Varanasi8 Orissa3 Calcutta3 Rajasthan2 Uttarakhand1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 14849 Section 14741 Section 14415 Section 143(3)15 Reassessment13 Addition to Income11 Section 15110 Section 143(2)7 Reopening of Assessment7 Section 250

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 144" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation due to delayed service of notice under Section

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

6

Section 142(1)4

Limitation/Time-bar4

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 33/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee before completing the reassessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144

HIRALAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act is quashed and appeal of the assessee

SMITA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(4),, CHAIBASA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018–19 declaring total income of ₹6,07,870. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

ANWESH KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 207/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 80D

reassess such income. But in this case, there has been no income which has escaped assessment, the assessing officer in regard to deductions claimed by assessee wanted documentary evidences for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified by upholding the AO's order of addition of Rs. 1,20,879/- on account of HRA and addition

GAYATRI GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices calling upon the assessee to furnish details such as the identity, address, and genuineness of the persons from whom the share application money was received. However, the assessee failed to furnish complete details to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer held that

GAYATHRI GLOBAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD (1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices calling upon the assessee to furnish details such as the identity, address, and genuineness of the persons from whom the share application money was received. However, the assessee failed to furnish complete details to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer held that

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.467/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 20, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 09.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment proceedings, the assessee remained largely non-compliant, and therefore, the Assessing Officer was left with no alternative but to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144

M/S HEAVEN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-!(1), RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 226/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Heaven Construction & Engineering –Vs- Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabch 9922 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282(2)Section 48

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s only argument raised during the course of hearing is that the Assessing Officer’s section 48 notice dated 22.10.2019 forming part of record ought to have been served on the Principal Officer than

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

144 and 144B, making an addition of ₹77,72,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition was made on the allegation that the assessee purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated

SARYU DEVI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 251/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Saryu Devi…..………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant W/O Hira Nath Singh, Neori, Vikas, Sadar Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835217. [Pan: Geppd1201D] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi…..….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 10.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Lady, Residing In A Village Area. She Had Not Filed Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 As, According To Her, She Had No Taxable Income. The Assessee Was Not Registered On The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal During The Relevant Period. Her E-Filing Registration Was Done For The First Time On 09.03.2025. The Ao Received Information Through The Risk Management Strategy (Rms) That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of ₹30,70,000. Based On This Information, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated After Following

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

144 of the Act treating the alleged investment of ₹30,70,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Where the ld. CIT(A), dismissed the appeal

NAVEEN SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

144, based on material available on record. The reasons recorded for reopening under section 147 were that information was received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna, that the assessee had purchased an immovable property from Shri Ajanta Chowdhury. As per the information the assessee purchase consideration shown at ₹6,35,00,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation

SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,DABAGARDENS vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/RAN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sunil Kumar Choudhary Huf...................…...........................……….……Appellant 30-15-138/20 Binoy Aka Complex, Opp. Bsnl Office, Andra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Aabhs6048Q] Vs. Acit……………………..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2Nd , 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 07.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Huf & Engaged In The Business Of Wholesaler, Transporter, Lease Rent. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,72,850/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass Followed Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 25.03.2015 With Assessed Income Of Rs.16,89,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Sought Reasons Recorded For Reopening, However The Assessing Officer Rejected Such Request Stating That The Assessee Failed To File Return In

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.10.19 assessing total income of assessee of Rs.3,71,59,193/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment order, where the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

DR MABLE KATYARE ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

Appeals are allowed

ITA 287/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 बनाम / Dr. Mable Katyare, H’Bagh Income Tax Officer, Pan: Afspk1459G Ward-1(1), H’Bagh V/S. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Chandan Das, Jcit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement -04-2019 Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम / Ramchandra Prasad Income Tax Officer, Pan: Afopp7929L Ward-1(1), H’Bagh V/S. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Chandan Das, Jcit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 09-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 8-04-2019

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on 'Sushil Gaur and Shelly Agarwal Vs. ITO', order dated 08.08.2017, passed by the SMC Bench of the Delhi (Trib.) in ITA 1500 & 1501/Del/2017. The ld. DR, per contra, relies on 'CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Educational Society', judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S TENUGHAT EMTA COAL MINES LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(2), RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2015[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mallick Adv & L.N.Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148

section 147/148 of the Act and that the reopening was bad in law. 2.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the reasons to believe did not exist and the AO had reopened the assessment as a change of opinion which is not permissible in law for reopening of the assessment.” 5. Apropos this ground