BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6,278 results for “reassessment”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,299Mumbai1,152Chennai468Ahmedabad416Raipur345Jaipur345Bangalore302Hyderabad247Kolkata214Pune208Chandigarh171Rajkot151Indore128Surat93Patna87Nagpur76Amritsar71Cuttack68Agra59Visakhapatnam53Ranchi53Guwahati52Lucknow49Jodhpur42Cochin40Allahabad39Dehradun33Panaji9Varanasi4Jabalpur4

Key Topics

Section 148110Section 147102Section 143(3)79Addition to Income73Section 271(1)(c)51Section 153C40Section 25037Section 26333Reassessment33Natural Justice

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

Showing 1–20 of 6,278 · Page 1 of 314

...
30
Section 153A29
Reopening of Assessment20

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

SHAFIQ AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hasan Khan, Virtually Present
Section 148Section 148A

natural justice are not mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings. While the assessee is judicial proceedings. While the assessee is judicial proceedings. While the assessee is expected to be vigilant in pursuing its remedies

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 467/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been \nmade.\n\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June, \n2003.\"\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments \nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or \ndocuments

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been \nmade.\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June, \n2003.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments \nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or \ndocuments or assets seized

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

natural justice namely ural justice namely that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine and rebut the evidence gathered behind his back and that he will and rebut the evidence gathered behind his back

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6522/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6523/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6524/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

Natural Justice. The assessee was not provided any opportunity before treating the cash sales as not genuine. However the learned CIT Appeal has deleted the entire additions accepting the plea of the asseseee that the sales effected by the assessee were genuine. In the cross objections the plea of the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) should have quashed

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8454/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8452/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8453/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5500/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar
Section 153C

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5499/MUM/2025[20187-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar
Section 153C

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5501/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar
Section 153C

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession