Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

14 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi678 Mumbai624 Bangalore309 Ahmedabad120 Jaipur95 Chennai88 Hyderabad84 Kolkata70 Pune49 Agra29 Rajkot28 Indore26 Surat23 Cochin22 Nagpur21 Dehradun19 Lucknow19 Chandigarh18 Visakhapatnam17 Patna14 Amritsar14 Allahabad10 Cuttack8 Ranchi7 Karnataka7 Guwahati5 Jodhpur4 SC3 Raipur3 Telangana2 Panaji1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14756 Section 14825 Section 69A20 Addition to Income14 Section 250(6)12 Section 28210 Section 151(2)10 Survey u/s 133A10 Section 143(3)5

THE BABA NAG RICE & GENRAL MILLS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/ASR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Sh. Sudarshan Kapoor (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 244A

section 234B(1) in the present case, no additional interest u/s. 234B(3) could have been charged in reassessment, which

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated under section 147 for the purpose of enquiry and verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of-the case, CIT did not recorded satisfaction under Section 151 for issuing notice under Section 147. 4. Without prejudice, no approval has been obtained from the component authority as required u/s 151. Hence the notice

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH GAUTAM SETH,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 108/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271Section 40A(3)Section 44A

Section 40A(3) without appreciating the fact that the provision of 40A(3) is not applicable where the Gross Profit Ratio is estimated u/ s. 44AF. 5. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 14,88,263/- u/s. 44AF without appreciating the fact that the transaction of purchase

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

reassessment in the present case and that too without providing to the assessee all the records and documents including verification reports already with the department in connection with the same issue for the same assessee and for the same Assessment Year based on which refund of TDS was allowed and approved both by the A O and by the Commissioner