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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 197clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi322Mumbai266Chennai121Bangalore110Jaipur93Chandigarh51Surat50Hyderabad49Kolkata46Ahmedabad44Raipur43Pune29Amritsar14Cochin14Indore14Rajkot13Lucknow13Visakhapatnam10Agra5Calcutta5Karnataka4Nagpur4Telangana4Cuttack4SC2Guwahati1Patna1Jodhpur1Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14820Section 1475Section 695Addition to Income5Cash Deposit3Natural Justice2

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10ASection 69

reassessment of the assessees claiming deduction under section 10A, it has been decided that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, shall not be denied to STP units only on the ground that the approval/registration to such units has been granted by the Directors of Software Technology Parks. However, it has to be ensured that

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

ITA 332/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Bench:
Section 147Section 148

197 (URO) (Delhi - Trib.), it has been held that where the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on the ground that there was an escapement of income and the belief regarding such escapement of income was formed on the fallacious assumption of the Assessing Officer that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, overlooking the fact that the source

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 137/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234B

reassessment and therefore same are directed to be quashed. 22. We are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the fact of investment in premium paid is akin to cash deposits in saving bank account as both being Investment and are (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) assessable under section

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

ITA 393/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment and therefore same are directed to be quashed. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) 27. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel of the assessee that the fact of investment in property is akin to cash deposits in saving bank account as both being Investments and are assessable under section 69 of the Act, and such fact

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SARASWAT,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

197 (Delhi -Trib) (APB, 16 to 20). b) Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported as (2016) 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar -Trib) (APB, 21 to 34). c) Praveen Kumar Jain vs. ITO Order dated 17.12.2015 in ITA no.1331/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi) (APB 35 to 44).” 4. The ld. CIT(A), however, has held as under: I.T.A No. 109/Agra/2017 5 “I find that