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 7(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,084Mumbai2,826Chennai1,031Ahmedabad729Kolkata621Hyderabad562Jaipur549Bangalore545Raipur436Pune380Chandigarh355Indore244Rajkot234Surat209Amritsar186Cochin164Visakhapatnam156Patna154Nagpur131Cuttack111Agra109Guwahati97Ranchi88Lucknow81Dehradun81SC70Jodhpur68Allahabad46Panaji31Jabalpur12Varanasi9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 112Penalty2

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

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

7 of the said minutes in particular seem to suggest that the exemption that was contemplated by the minutes of such Blast Furnace units was something that could take place only in the future. 17. Quite apart from this, it is clear that no exception was carved out before 19.5.2000 in favour of Blast Furnace Manufacturers either when the provisional

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

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

7. Recovery of duty.- Every person who produces, cures or manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse, shall pay the duty or duties leviable on such goods, at such time and place and to such persons as may be designated, in, or under authority of these rules, whether the payment of such duty or duties

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

Appeals are disposed of

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

7 SCC 1, this Court held:- “Coming to the stand and stance of the State of Haryana, as put forth by Mr Mishra, the same suffers from two basic fallacies, first, the supply and installation of lift treating it as a contract for sale on the basis of the overwhelming component test, because there is a stipulation in the contract