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 2(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,908Mumbai2,803Chennai835Bangalore779Jaipur678Ahmedabad587Kolkata525Hyderabad495Pune316Chandigarh289Surat196Indore195Amritsar185Raipur178Rajkot173Visakhapatnam144Cuttack103Cochin98Patna93Agra92Nagpur84Lucknow82Karnataka78Guwahati63Telangana58Dehradun52Jodhpur49Allahabad47Ranchi41SC27Panaji16Calcutta9Orissa9Rajasthan8Jabalpur7Kerala5Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 2636Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Section 1473Section 1433Reassessment3Section 260A2Section 132(4)2Addition to Income

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
2

30% of such undisclosed income. Section 185 deals with penalty. Section 186 speaks about the manner of declaration and sub Section (2) of Section 186 enumerates as to who has to sign the declaration. Section 187 deals with time for payment of tax. Section 188 deals with undisclosed income declared not to be included in the total income. The provision

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

2,11,30,118/- Next year Tax, thereon NIL Assessed u/s. 143 (3) as above Please issue Demand Notice and copy of the order to the assessee. (MONALISA PAL MUKHERJEE) Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Kolkata” 5. As stated by learned counsel for the respondent assessee, a notice dated 23.03.2010 under Section 147/148

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

30,00,000/- including the aforesaid amount, in the return of income filed under Section 153A for the assessment year 2007-08. Under invoicing of sales was also admitted by the respondent/assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts that were offered to tax as part of disclosure under section 132(4) of the Act. (Accordingly

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)

2,89,68,884/- as income in his return, therefore, merely for the reasons that the addition of income offered by the assessee was made by the assessing officer by issuing notice under Section 148 instead of rectifying it under Section 154 of the Act, 1961 does not mean that the aforesaid income was not taxable. Against this order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

ITAT/275/2024HC Calcutta12 Nov 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 148Section 263

2 The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the following order: “8. At this stage, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of „PCIT vs. Usha Polychem Indias (P) Ltd‟ reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 240 (Cal), wherein, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court has held that where

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

30 South India Trust Association) and 2007 volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 178 (Pijush Kanti Chowdhury versus State of West Bengal). 41. Learned advocate appearing for Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd has contended that, the amending Act cannot have retrospective effect. He has relied upon 2016 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another

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

30 South India Trust Association) and 2007 volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 178 (Pijush Kanti Chowdhury versus State of West Bengal). 41. Learned advocate appearing for Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd has contended that, the amending Act cannot have retrospective effect. He has relied upon 2016 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another

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

30 South India Trust Association) and 2007 volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 178 (Pijush Kanti Chowdhury versus State of West Bengal). 41. Learned advocate appearing for Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd has contended that, the amending Act cannot have retrospective effect. He has relied upon 2016 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another

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

30 South India Trust Association) and 2007 volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 178 (Pijush Kanti Chowdhury versus State of West Bengal). 41. Learned advocate appearing for Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd has contended that, the amending Act cannot have retrospective effect. He has relied upon 2016 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another