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 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai159Delhi144Chennai86Bangalore70Amritsar43Jaipur34Raipur32Kolkata25Hyderabad24Rajkot21Indore20Ahmedabad19Agra16Pune15Cochin14Jodhpur10Cuttack10Lucknow8Chandigarh8Surat7Visakhapatnam4Nagpur2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)12Section 1487Section 143(3)7Section 254(1)5Section 1475Disallowance5Reopening of Assessment3Section 40A2Section 139(1)

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)

40A(3) of the Act. The assessee instead of substantiating that submission raised a new plea by taking the excuse of alleged conditions No.6 and 17, allegedly printed on back side of bill of transporter. No such copy of bill is produced for our perusal. In aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order

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

2
Section 143(2)2
Addition to Income2
ITA 2386/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
09 Nov 2021
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

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

40A(3) of the Act. The assessee instead of substantiating that submission raised a new plea by taking the excuse of alleged conditions No.6 and 17, allegedly printed on back side of bill of transporter. No such copy of bill is produced for our perusal. In aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order

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)

40A(3) of the Act. The assessee instead of substantiating that submission raised a new plea by taking the excuse of alleged conditions No.6 and 17, allegedly printed on back side of bill of transporter. No such copy of bill is produced for our perusal. In aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order

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

ITA 1764/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

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

40A(3) of the Act. The assessee instead of substantiating that submission raised a new plea by taking the excuse of alleged conditions No.6 and 17, allegedly printed on back side of bill of transporter. No such copy of bill is produced for our perusal. In aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order

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

u/s 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

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

u/s 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

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