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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 245D(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai127Delhi48Hyderabad43Chennai23Indore18Allahabad16Chandigarh12Pune9Surat8Jaipur8Kolkata7Cochin7Visakhapatnam5SC5Bangalore4Ahmedabad3Varanasi2Lucknow1Telangana1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 2634Section 1324Section 115J3Section 1483Addition to Income3Section 143(1)2Section 153B2Reopening of Assessment2

SHRI ATUL HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 200/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Atul Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 8, Amrashirish Bungalows, Vs. Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahladnagar Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aljps4966M

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

245D(1) of the Act was received by the PCIT or CIT on same day, the 12 days starting from 27th February 2017 to 10th March 2017 shall be excluded. Ater excluding the said period the time limit expiring under normal circumstances as per subsection (1) of section 153B of the Act is less than 60 days hence the same

Limitation/Time-bar2

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. M.G.F. GROWTH RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2311/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153(4)Section 68

245D and 245Q is received by the Commissioner. Thus, the legislature has provided for excluding the period from the date of communication of the order where they so intended. The use of concept of communication of receiving the order in the same provision which is absent in Explanation 1 (ii) concerned clearly indicates that for the purposes of Explanation 1

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2260/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) rws 147 by the Assessing Officer is void ab initio and needs to be quashed. 9. On this issue, we further clarify that the limitation period for completing assessment would start from date when High Court vacated the stay order and not from date when Assessing Officer received such vacation order. Thus