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.

6 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,470Delhi3,170Chennai936Bangalore762Ahmedabad749Kolkata687Jaipur489Hyderabad468Pune407Chandigarh274Rajkot223Raipur215Indore197Surat196Amritsar133Visakhapatnam125Patna104Agra98Nagpur96Cochin95Guwahati85Lucknow63Jodhpur55Dehradun46Cuttack44Allahabad42Panaji18Ranchi16Jabalpur7Varanasi6SC5

Key Topics

Section 14723Section 14811Section 253(3)5Section 1444Section 2634Section 271(1)(c)4Cash Deposit4Section 143(3)3Section 249(4)(b)

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. CIT (E),, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/ALLD/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi17 Jan 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Varanasi Development Authority, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pannalal Park, Raja Udai Pratap (Exemption), Lucknow Marg, Katchary, Varanasi Pan-Aaatv6811A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 43B

Additional Ground Number 1, the Appellant begs to submit as under- i. Without Prejudice to the submissions made herein above, the Appellant begs to submit that the order of rejection dated 26/03/2015 to the objections raised by the Appellant was communicated to the Appellant alongwith Assessment Order dated 30/03/2015 u/s 147/14313) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 04/04/2015 which

3
Reassessment3
Addition to Income3
Limitation/Time-bar3

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

ITA 124/VNS/2020[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

reassessment order dated 19.11.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is null and void because it suffers from jurisdictional material and it has been made without jurisdiction and authority of law. There is no record of satisfaction and sanction for issue of notice u/s 148. 2. The appellate order dated 19.11.2019 is against the natural justice because appeal has been

SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 51/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi12 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

147 of the 1961 Act(ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1022201265(1)). I.T.A. No.51/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 2 Shri Prakash Yadav v. ITO, Ward 2(4), Ballia, U.P. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi Circuit Bench, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) reads as under: “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and action of authorities was totally arbitrary as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and action of authorities was totally arbitrary as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

ITA 42/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 48

addition made on account of CAPITAL GAIN is wholly wrong and against the facts of the case. 3. That in any case the authorities below have not allowed the proper opportunity to explain the case. 4. That the authorities below have erred in holding the cost of acquisition of property to be nil as per provision of the Income