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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,476Mumbai2,852Bangalore970Chennai946Jaipur700Kolkata584Ahmedabad554Hyderabad536Pune329Chandigarh319Surat259Raipur226Indore220Amritsar208Rajkot191Visakhapatnam166Cuttack133Cochin123Karnataka104Nagpur103Agra93Patna91Lucknow80Guwahati75Telangana67Dehradun46Jodhpur43Allahabad40Ranchi34SC30Panaji17Calcutta9Rajasthan6Orissa6Jabalpur5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Varanasi3Kerala3Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 1476Section 1434Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Section 260A3Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

ITAT/71/2018HC Calcutta15 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceeding was based on change of opinion. The findings recorded by the ITAT in 11 this regard in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order are reproduced below:- “8. A perusal of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer makes it abundantly clear that the assessment originally completed by him under section 143(3) was reopened

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA/1/2014
Exemption2
Reopening of Assessment2
Survey u/s 133A2
HC Calcutta
06 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

10. It may also be mentioned that at the stage of the issue of notice the consideration which has to weigh is whether there is some relevant material giving rise to prima facie inference that some turnover has escaped assessment. The question as to whether that material in sufficient for making assessment or re-assessment under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

ITAT/96/2021HC Calcutta11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 180Section 182Section 260ASection 263

10 Section 69(c) of the Act. With these findings the Assessing Officer was directed to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee has already offered long term capital gain of Rs.74

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 147 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court in the 8 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 9 (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 10 (2011) 336 ITR 136 11 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) 12 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

10), the impugned order of the ITAT deserves to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the assessing officer has failed to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 during the course of assessment proceeding and has not recorded that the assessee has concealed his income. 15. Therefore, the penalty orders

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RADHASHYAM TIRTHABASI PAUL

ITA/106/2018HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

ITAT/128/2018HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. LAST PEAK DATA PRIVATE LIMITED

ITAT/106/2018HC Calcutta26 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

ITAT/108/2018HC Calcutta05 Feb 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring