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.

71 results for “reassessment”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,083Delhi1,002Jaipur319Ahmedabad306Kolkata258Bangalore233Chennai215Pune154Rajkot91Indore80Hyderabad80Chandigarh74Surat71Raipur70Cochin65Amritsar48Cuttack42Nagpur41Guwahati34Ranchi34Lucknow34Visakhapatnam31Allahabad26Patna25Agra24Dehradun23Panaji11SC11Jodhpur10Karnataka10Telangana7Jabalpur5Varanasi4Calcutta2Gauhati1Rajasthan1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)116Section 14875Section 69A63Section 80I63Section 14761Addition to Income57Penalty47Section 14433Section 143(3)32Reassessment

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1720/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

28
Section 254(1)21
Reopening of Assessment21

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceeding can be initiated as provided under section 147. This again shows that full and true disclosure of income is a primary obligation of the assesee. It is clear that the proceedings can be initiated under section 271(1) only if the AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under that any person has concealed the particulars

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act were completed on 12.12.2019, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹5,25,000/- representing unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus,certain facts in both the appeals are common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. In ITA No.1581/AHD/2013, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

ITA 229/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

c), 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act, were supplied. As per this letter, all these orders were received by assessee on 17/2/2020 as per their acknowledgement on the said letter. Further we find that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 05/3/2020. 12. The ld. AR of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

ITA 230/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

c), 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act, were supplied. As per this letter, all these orders were received by assessee on 17/2/2020 as per their acknowledgement on the said letter. Further we find that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 05/3/2020. 12. The ld. AR of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

ITA 231/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

c), 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act, were supplied. As per this letter, all these orders were received by assessee on 17/2/2020 as per their acknowledgement on the said letter. Further we find that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 05/3/2020. 12. The ld. AR of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

ITA 228/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

c), 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act, were supplied. As per this letter, all these orders were received by assessee on 17/2/2020 as per their acknowledgement on the said letter. Further we find that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 05/3/2020. 12. The ld. AR of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

ITA 227/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

c), 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act, were supplied. As per this letter, all these orders were received by assessee on 17/2/2020 as per their acknowledgement on the said letter. Further we find that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 05/3/2020. 12. The ld. AR of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has furnished complete details during reassessment. Mere not acceptance of reply

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order