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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Section 120clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi580Mumbai520Bangalore163Chennai147Hyderabad109Kolkata99Raipur80Jaipur79Ahmedabad67Chandigarh60Pune43Cochin34Karnataka31Indore30Lucknow29Telangana29Surat28Patna26Rajkot25Allahabad23Guwahati22Cuttack17Jodhpur13Visakhapatnam11SC6Amritsar4Orissa3Nagpur3Varanasi2Panaji2Rajasthan2Calcutta2Dehradun2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)7Section 2633Section 260A2Section 120(1)2Section 127(2)2Section 1202

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

ITAT/58/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv
Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260A

120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an assessing officer under this Act. In the instant case, the 4 order of assessment was challenged on several grounds and, particularly, on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued within the time prescribed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S OSL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/145/2022HC Calcutta16 Nov 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 116Section 120(1)Section 124Section 127(2)Section 260ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act is devoid of jurisdiction?” 2 Accordingly, the substantial question of law suggested is re-framed on the above terms. We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. S.M. Surana, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find