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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 40Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai243Delhi217Chennai130Bangalore94Jaipur54Amritsar46Raipur35Kolkata34Hyderabad34Indore32Ahmedabad26Rajkot25Cuttack25Cochin23Pune18Agra16Lucknow11Surat11Guwahati10Nagpur10Jodhpur10Patna9Chandigarh8Visakhapatnam4Karnataka3Dehradun2SC1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14813Section 40A(3)12Section 143(3)9Section 254(1)7Section 1477Addition to Income6Reopening of Assessment5Disallowance5Section 40A4Section 143(2)

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3278/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment Assessing Officer recorded that on verification of Audit report, it was noticed that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. As per provision of 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not eligible for such deduction. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notice proceedings proceeded for re- assessment and issued

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

4
Section 139(1)2
ITA 1764/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
09 Nov 2021
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment Assessing Officer recorded that on verification of Audit report, it was noticed that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. As per provision of 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not eligible for such deduction. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notice proceedings proceeded for re- assessment and issued

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2198/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment Assessing Officer recorded that on verification of Audit report, it was noticed that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. As per provision of 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not eligible for such deduction. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notice proceedings proceeded for re- assessment and issued

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2386/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

reassessment Assessing Officer recorded that on verification of Audit report, it was noticed that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. As per provision of 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not eligible for such deduction. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notice proceedings proceeded for re- assessment and issued

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

ITA 1769/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

For Appellant: 2. Ground Nos.1 is general in nature and do not require adjudication
Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer as on 1st October, 2009". In the instant case the TPO has passed order on 29.09.2009 Therefore, said proviso would not be applicable. As held by the ITAT Bangalore in the case of TE Connectivity India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT Circle 12(4), Bengaluru [2019] 104 taxmann.com 322 (Bengaluru–Trib) and others

SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 356/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40A

40A (3) of the Act. There was no actual purchase and payment was shown for conducting business. As per such information, the assessee has shown sale of diamonds of Rs. 6.35 crores to Kalsaria Diamonds and others. On further conducting enquiry, it was found that the assessee could not furnish complete names and addresses of persons from whom the assessee

SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 357/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40A

40A (3) of the Act. There was no actual purchase and payment was shown for conducting business. As per such information, the assessee has shown sale of diamonds of Rs. 6.35 crores to Kalsaria Diamonds and others. On further conducting enquiry, it was found that the assessee could not furnish complete names and addresses of persons from whom the assessee

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAMRUDDHI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3390/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

40A(3) of the Act. The provisions of section 147 have undergone a drastic change since 01.04.89. The leading case on this issue is that of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society, 119 ITR 996 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of the Internal Audit Party on a point of law could not be regarded as "information" enabling

M/S. SAMRIDDHI CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3035/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

40A(3) of the Act. The provisions of section 147 have undergone a drastic change since 01.04.89. The leading case on this issue is that of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society, 119 ITR 996 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of the Internal Audit Party on a point of law could not be regarded as "information" enabling

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 proceeding for A.Y. 2016-17 is also going on, at present, in my case. A SMS was received somewhere in January 2023, from the department that notice/letter/communication have been served on portal which requires e- compliance from my side. At that time, my consultant has looked in to the portal under my ID and Password. At that time

HI-TECH MARKETING,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the Ground no

ITA 17/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainihi-Tech Marketing, The Income – Tax Officer, 114, Belgium Tower, Old Ward -3(1)(4), Surat Linear Bus Stop, Station Road, Surat – 395 003. Vs Pan : Aabfh5705N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

section (u/s) 143(3) of the Act on 12/03/2013. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act. Notice u/s.148 dated 26/03/2015 served upon the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148 dated 26/03/2015, the assessee filed its reply dated 09/04/2015. In reply the assessee contended that return filed on 31/09/2010 may be considered as return in response