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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,557Mumbai1,465Chennai566Jaipur408Hyderabad358Bangalore358Ahmedabad315Kolkata276Chandigarh211Pune166Raipur138Rajkot125Indore113Amritsar111Surat94Patna81Guwahati68Agra67Visakhapatnam66Nagpur51Jodhpur48SC48Cuttack43Cochin42Allahabad39Lucknow39Dehradun30Ranchi30Panaji13Jabalpur10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Varanasi1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 112Penalty2

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-005802-005802 - 2005Supreme Court29 Jul 2015
Section 11Section 11ASection 4(3)(a)

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.A. No.-007189-007189 - 2005Supreme Court04 Aug 2015
Section 12Section 18Section 3A
Section 68
Section 9A

23. It is clear that on the facts of the present case the provisional assessment had been made in 1998 and the final 17 Page 18 JUDGMENT assessment only on 4.11.2004 by the Commissioner. Both these dates being prior to 13.7.2006, Shri Lakshmikumaran is right and no interest is chargeable under Section 18 of the Customs Act, for the period

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

23 of this judgment, the second Gannon Dunkerley judgment is referred to in passing without noticing any of the key paragraphs set out hereinabove in our judgment. Also, we find that the judgment in G.D. Builders (supra) went on to quote from the judgment in Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 (3) SCC 668, to arrive