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 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,614Mumbai1,508Bangalore559Chennai467Jaipur343Ahmedabad322Hyderabad297Kolkata287Chandigarh170Raipur131Pune125Rajkot116Indore111Surat109Amritsar82Guwahati55Nagpur52Lucknow48Visakhapatnam38Cuttack36Cochin36Allahabad35Patna34Telangana32Jodhpur29Karnataka22Agra20Dehradun16Orissa5SC5Ranchi4Kerala3Panaji2Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 1479Section 10(38)4Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 234A2Section 2502Section 1392Section 143(3)

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Penny Stock2
Exemption2

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

147 determining the total income at ₹2,26,89,300. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the additions observing as under: “Appellate findings: I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the Ld.AO and the material available on record. In his written submission the Ld. AR stated that

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 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 Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251

26, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 07, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 28.11.2023 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