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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi335 Mumbai323 Bangalore162 Jaipur99 Amritsar72 Chandigarh53 Chennai53 Kolkata52 Ahmedabad45 Pune32 Raipur29 Hyderabad28 Rajkot27 Patna22 Cochin20 Indore18 Agra16 Jodhpur11 Surat11 Cuttack9 Lucknow6 Visakhapatnam5 Dehradun5 Telangana5 Nagpur4 Allahabad3 SC2 Varanasi2 Ranchi1 Kerala1 Calcutta1 Rajasthan1 Karnataka1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26327 Section 14723 Section 142(1)15 Section 14810 Section 143(3)8 Addition to Income8 Section 145(3)4 Section 2503 Section 151A3 Revision u/s 263

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

section 282 of the Act. The absence of valid service vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. 1. The Appellant respectfully submits

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

3

Natural Justice2

ITA 501/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

section 282 of the Act. The absence of valid service vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. 1. The Appellant respectfully submits

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

section 282 of the Act. The absence of valid service vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. 1. The Appellant respectfully submits

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

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

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

reassess the company's income, then it would. have stated in section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer". In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held. that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI D. PATEL,BARDOLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment, the PCIT should not have exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 10. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that Assessing Officer has not conducted the further enquiry. No doubt, the Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein he has asked the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings the assessing officer noted that the assessee has shown purchases from three parties namely Sagun Impex of Rs. 29.36 Crore, Nakoda Gems of Rs. 1.27 Crore and Sunrise Impex of Rs. 99.67 Lacs, total of Rs. 31.64 Crore. In order to verify the genuineness of the expenses of purchases, the assessing officer sent notices to all the three

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

reassessment. Mere not acceptance of reply, cannot be a ground to levy of penalty. The assessee neither concealed any particular of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Assessing Officer has not specified the specific charge in the show cause notice. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that mere because addition was 5 Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi

WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessed without any modification. The company had filed all the details before the AO during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and the subsequent proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 and 147 of the Act. The FAO-NaFAC completed after considering the submission made by the ITA Nos.501 & 502/SRT/2024/AYs.2014-15 & 2015-16 Wind Financial Services LLP company. The case

WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessed without any modification. The company had filed all the details before the AO during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and the subsequent proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 and 147 of the Act. The FAO-NaFAC completed after considering the submission made by the ITA Nos.501 & 502/SRT/2024/AYs.2014-15 & 2015-16 Wind Financial Services LLP company. The case

M/S. I.P. PATEL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 37/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 108Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

section 144 of the Act. Since, the assessee has followed the method as per accounting standard AS-1 and AS-9. We find that the Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai vide order COMMR.PMS/ADJN/01/2012-13 dated 17.04.2012 [File No. SD/ INT/ AIU/ 27/ 2003-AP ”C” STFS/ 14-07- 03/2003] wherein, Para 10, held that the diamonds seized

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT vs. M/S. I.P. PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 414/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 108Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

section 144 of the Act. Since, the assessee has followed the method as per accounting standard AS-1 and AS-9. We find that the Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai vide order COMMR.PMS/ADJN/01/2012-13 dated 17.04.2012 [File No. SD/ INT/ AIU/ 27/ 2003-AP ”C” STFS/ 14-07- 03/2003] wherein, Para 10, held that the diamonds seized