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.

95 results for “reassessment”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai267Delhi202Chennai102Ahmedabad95Bangalore75Jaipur68Chandigarh65Hyderabad54Raipur39Kolkata38Guwahati29Indore23Rajkot21Nagpur20Allahabad20Agra18Pune17Amritsar15Jodhpur14SC13Ranchi13Cuttack11Surat11Visakhapatnam10Lucknow10Cochin7Patna5Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14A50Section 13249Section 14739Addition to Income30Section 14826Section 26322Reassessment17Section 143(3)14Disallowance13Penalty

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 39/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 43/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

13
Section 1112
Section 69A11

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 36/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 38/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 40/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 42/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 34/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 35/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 31/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 37/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1915/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 33/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 41/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 32/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 44/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

125 Taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) and submitted that the validity of the reopening of the assessment has to be determined with reference to the reasons as recorded by the AO. He asserted that sufficiency or correctness of any material cannot be considered at the stage of the notice. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court