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”+ Section 270clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai359Delhi281Chennai109Bangalore96Hyderabad75Ahmedabad74Jaipur45Chandigarh41Cochin40Visakhapatnam35Cuttack23Kolkata20Guwahati18Indore15Patna14Rajkot12Pune12Dehradun11Agra7Raipur6Allahabad6Lucknow5Karnataka5Surat4Telangana4Nagpur4SC3Amritsar2Orissa1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(3)6Section 1473Section 133(6)3Addition to Income3Reassessment3Section 682Disallowance2Reopening of Assessment2

ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT vs. SHRI PRAVINBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Pravinbhai Manubhai Patel, Ward 3(2)(2), 311, Mohandeep Society, Behind Vs. Surat. Haridarshan Society, Ved Road, Surat. Pan No. Aiipp 4526 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

270/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 23/01/2013 by making certain additions/disallowances on account of expenses, diesel expenses and some other expenses by treating personal in nature and addition on account of household expenses thereby assessing total income

THE ITO, WARD-7(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR GOYAL, SURAT

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

ITA 1487/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

270 ITR 469 Guj) and decisions of Tribunal in ITO Vs Smt Gurinder Kaur ( 2006) ITD 189/105 TTJ 198 and ACIT Vs Raj Kumar Jain [IT(SS) A No. 28/Del/2012] dated 08.07.2015. 9. In rejoinder submissions the Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee never raised objections against the reopening during the reassessment before the assessing officer

ANIS AHMED MIYA MOHAMMED KAPADIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 1397/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1397/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2008-09 Anis Ahmed Miya Mohammed Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapadia, Ward-3(3)(1), 11/900, Sindhiwad,Chowk Bazar, Surat. Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Adtpk 8547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.N. Vepari, C.A ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. R.Kavitha, Sr. D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2018 आदेश/Order Perc.M.Garg: This Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.03.2016 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09 Passed In The First Appeal No.Cas/3/Trfd/V/118/2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Consequently Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act By Adjudicating The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Vepari, C.A ""For Respondent: Mrs. R.Kavitha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

section 50C and for substituting the value as per Stamp Valuation Authorities which is only an estimate. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have referred the matter for valuation u/s. 50C(2) of the Act. 3. We have heard the arguments of the both sides, and carefully perused the relevant material

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

reassessment for the verification, independent opinion needs to be held to be absent. 17.Resultantly, this appeal fails and dismissed accordingly.” 31. Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Smt. Bindu Garg, ITA No.125.2020, order dated 15 January, 2021, held as follows: “10. We have heard Mr. Hossain at length and given our thoughtful