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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 153(3)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,810Mumbai979Chennai475Bangalore424Hyderabad236Jaipur222Kolkata141Chandigarh115Amritsar76Ahmedabad73Raipur66Pune65Indore52Guwahati52Karnataka44Cochin35Telangana35Lucknow32Nagpur32Patna31Surat28Visakhapatnam27Cuttack25Ranchi22Rajkot20Allahabad20Dehradun16Jodhpur15Panaji14SC12Agra5Calcutta5Orissa4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana3Kerala2Gauhati2Jabalpur2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 153A8Section 143(3)6Section 271(1)(c)4Section 260A3Section 1473Section 1433Reassessment3Addition to Income3Section 1322Section 132A

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

ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit has been computed

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

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

2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2
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

ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in holding that the order under Section 263 of the Act was without jurisdiction as such as the items of addition directed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was part of IDS, 2016 and not part of order under Section 143(3) of the Act? iii) Whether

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

ITA/1/2014HC Calcutta06 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)

II) in which the following substantial questions of law was framed :- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Tribunal is justified in disallowing the sum of Rs.28,89,56,562/- paid as interest on borrowed capital for acquisition of fixed assets under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act inasmuch as the said assets have been

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of 15 April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 Commissioner or section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. M/S PHALGUNI ENCLAVE PVT LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

ITAT/281/2022HC Calcutta08 May 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For Appellant Mr. S. Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. N. Mittal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- It Appears That There Is A Delay Of Twenty Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condone Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss) A No. 24/Kol/2021 & Co 05/Kol/2022 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12.

Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

153 C and not u/s 153A as in this instant case ? iv) WHETHER ld tribunal has committed a gross error in relying on the judgement of CIT-Vs- Kabul Chawla in (2016) ITR 573 (Del) which is different as contended addition was u/s 2(22) (e) of the act ? v) WHETHER the ld tribunal has committed a gross error