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.

4,094 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai983Delhi689Chennai355Bangalore332Ahmedabad248Jaipur233Kolkata169Hyderabad134Chandigarh116Pune112Indore105Raipur103Cochin64Rajkot58Lucknow50Surat48Guwahati42Patna36Visakhapatnam34Amritsar30Nagpur29Cuttack24Agra18Jodhpur17Allahabad16Dehradun11Karnataka11Jabalpur4Varanasi4Telangana4SC3Gauhati2Ranchi2Himachal Pradesh2Panaji2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Kerala1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 147114Section 148112Section 143(3)101Addition to Income72Section 14A61Section 153A38Reassessment37Disallowance36Reopening of Assessment35

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

u/s. 147. There is difference between reason to believe and reason to suspect. The former is based on some tangible material which has some nexus on the basis of which a prudent person can have a belief wherein in latter case there would be no tangible material at all. When the action was taken by the learning assessing officer

Showing 1–20 of 4,094 · Page 1 of 205

...
Exemption29
Section 25028
Section 6821

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

147 of the Act, wherein the A.O was vested with the jurisdiction to assess or 21 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board reassess such income, other than the income involving the matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment, it was only

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

exemption claimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In aimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In aimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In this case, there is no whisper in the recorded reasons about assessee this case, there

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

exemption claimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In aimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In aimed u/s 11 for registered trust u/s.12A of the Act does not arise. In this case, there is no whisper in the recorded reasons about assessee this case, there

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

u/s 143(3):\n•\nComplete books of accounts and other documents as required by the ld. AO were\nproduced for verification.\nThese books and relevant documents were duly verified by the ld. AO.\nThe material consumed expenditure / सामग्री व्यय was verified by the ld. AO as\nhas been stated at length in the show cause notice and also the assessment

RAJEEV BRIJBHUSHAN BHATNAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4501/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi/
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271FSection 54

exemption under section 54 of Income Tax Act under section 54 of Income Tax Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment order passed u/s 147

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide his order dated 24.12.2010 and disallowed the claim of exemption

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income

WARM FORGINGS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 1148/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. 93. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / reassessment

FICHTNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 959/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 959/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Fichtner Consulting Assistant Commissioner Of Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax (Osd), No. 165, 9Th Floor, Menon Corporate Circle -2, Eternity St. Mary’S Road, Chennai – 600 034. Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacf-5620-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147

147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded as per which income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment on account of ineligible claim of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act, and accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2016, was issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

exempt income u/s 10 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee is maintaining common books of accounts and hence the expenses are to be apportioned between different heads of income. The AO disallowed expenses on proportionate basis to the tune of Rs. 7,21,181/- u/s 14A of the 1961 Act while framing original assessment order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25.1.1,MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. J M FINACIAL PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1627/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), J M Financial Property Fund Ii, 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Kautilya 141, Makers Chambers Iii, Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabtj 0512 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/FenilFor Respondent: 04/07/2024
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s 147 of the Act wherein

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD was required to be offered under the head "income from other s required to be offered under the head "income from other

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

u/s 153C of the Act, issues a notice u/s 153C to file a return of income for reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

exemption has not been claimed in the return filed u/s 139(4A) of the Act within the time limit is concerned, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that till the assessment year 2017-18 there was no requirement of furnishing the return within the time limit u/s 12A(b) which only required that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

exemption has not been claimed in the return filed u/s 139(4A) of the Act within the time limit is concerned, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that till the assessment year 2017-18 there was no requirement of furnishing the return within the time limit u/s 12A(b) which only required that

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

exemption has not been claimed in the return filed u/s 139(4A) of the Act within the time limit is concerned, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that till the assessment year 2017-18 there was no requirement of furnishing the return within the time limit u/s 12A(b) which only required that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

exemption has not been claimed in the return filed u/s 139(4A) of the Act within the time limit is concerned, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that till the assessment year 2017-18 there was no requirement of furnishing the return within the time limit u/s 12A(b) which only required that