Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai920 Delhi632 Chennai307 Ahmedabad244 Jaipur222 Bangalore207 Hyderabad166 Chandigarh160 Kolkata98 Pune91 Raipur85 Indore71 Guwahati50 Rajkot45 Surat44 Jodhpur43 Cochin41 Patna37 Nagpur35 Ranchi35 Visakhapatnam28 Lucknow25 Agra18 Cuttack18 Dehradun12 Amritsar9 Allahabad4 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14820 Section 35A20 Section 14713 Section 2507 Section 143(3)7 Addition to Income7 Section 148A6 Section 142(1)5 Reopening of Assessment4

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

section 80-IB of the Act. g) Sewak Ram Vs ITO 236 CTR 462 (P&H) After amendment of s. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 444/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Touseef Ahmad Khanday &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 10. In another case of “Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO”, 236 ITR 34 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 9 which has escaped assessment and which comes to his/her notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 9 which has escaped assessment and which comes to his/her notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

ITA 585/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

ITA 586/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

GURPAL SINGH SIDHU,NEAR GOVT SCHOOL vs. ITO WARD 1(2), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 9/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

reassessment notice was unjustified The facts of this case were entirely different than that of present case of the appellant. In the present case, the appellant could not explain source and nature of cash deposits before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer correctly proceeded with re-assessment proceedings and completed the assessment accordingly. 5.5. The appellant argued that

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

80,000/-) as stated by the AO) and the contention of the assessee was that the said deposit has come out of sale of agricultural produce. It was further submitted that 4 I.T.A. No. 541/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 investment in fixed deposits were made out of closure proceeds of earlier fixed deposits. 7. However, the AO accepted the documentary