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.

7 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,363Mumbai1,354Bangalore454Chennai444Jaipur288Ahmedabad273Hyderabad237Kolkata203Chandigarh153Pune108Raipur102Indore95Amritsar86Surat85Rajkot74Nagpur51Lucknow40Guwahati40Visakhapatnam36Telangana33Cuttack33Allahabad31Patna30Jodhpur29Cochin21Agra14Karnataka13Panaji8Ranchi7Orissa6SC4Kerala3Varanasi3Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Uttarakhand1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14822Section 143(3)18Section 14715Section 26310Section 143(2)5Reassessment5Addition to Income5Section 10(38)4Section 263(2)

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RAN/2022[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

u/s 133(6) of the Act . We note that this issue was not subject matter in the re-assessment proceedings nor it came to the notice of the AO during re-assessment proceedings which again culminated under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.10.2019. In our opinion, the limitation runs from

4
Reopening of Assessment4
Section 1393
Long Term Capital Gains3

MAYUR RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHUMRITELAIYA vs. PCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited Pr. Cit, Ranchi Gujhandi Road Vs Vill – Barwadih, Jhumritelaiya Pin - 825409 Pan : Aafcm5928H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ranchi (Hereinafter ‘Ld. Pr. Cit’), Dated 30/03/2022, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr. Cit As The Revisionary Proceedings Are Hopelessly Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

u/s 133(6) of the Act . We note that this issue was not subject matter in the re-assessment proceedings nor it came to the notice of the AO during re-assessment proceedings which again culminated under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 15.11.2019. In our opinion, the limitation runs from

MARS MERCANTILES PVT.LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pranab Kr. Koley, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Act and the order passed u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, assessee has prayed that the legal ground goes to the root of the matter for which all the facts are already on record and it may be admitted for adjudication. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision

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)

u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 dated 21.09.2020 do not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts at the time of original assessment. Therefore, the reopening is barred by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act and is void ab initio. Moreover, the reopening is also based

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

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147. He pointed out that Ld. AO had issued first notice u/s. 142(1) on 12.07.2017, then on 14.08.2017. Again on 17.11.2017 Ld. AO issued a letter and thereafter on 13.12.2017, Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the notice issued by the Ld. AO u/s. 142(1), it was mentioned that in case of non-compliance, assessment

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

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147. He pointed out that Ld. AO had issued first notice u/s. 142(1) on 12.07.2017, then on 14.08.2017. Again on 17.11.2017 Ld. AO issued a letter and thereafter on 13.12.2017, Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the notice issued by the Ld. AO u/s. 142(1), it was mentioned that in case of non-compliance, assessment

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 read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at ₹7,34,14,430, making the following addition