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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 2(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,461Mumbai2,452Bangalore763Chennai756Jaipur577Ahmedabad492Kolkata459Hyderabad441Pune261Chandigarh259Indore176Surat173Amritsar164Rajkot154Raipur151Visakhapatnam129Cochin92Patna80Cuttack78Karnataka77Agra73Nagpur64Lucknow57Guwahati55Telangana54Allahabad40Jodhpur35Dehradun33Ranchi31SC25Orissa10Calcutta10Jabalpur9Panaji7Rajasthan7Varanasi3Kerala3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 80H10Section 14710Section 260A4Section 143(3)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Reassessment4Section 132(4)2Deduction2Reopening of Assessment

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

2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 271 have necessarily to be initiated either by the Income-tax Officer or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The fact that the Income-tax Officer has to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if the minimum imposable penalty exceeds

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

2
Addition to Income2
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)

31 A. F. R. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/1/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA VS M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 6th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … for the appellant

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

ITA/32/2005HC Calcutta16 Sept 2022

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

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80H

reassessment proceedings are perverse and based on no material whatsoever and was arrived at ignoring the relevant materials on record in particular its own order in the rectification proceedings and 2 the various orders passed by Assessing Officer increasing or reducing the relief under Section 80HHC of the Act? ii) Whether the purported assessment proceedings initiated by the Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

ITAT/241/2024HC Calcutta06 May 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvocateFor Respondent: None
Section 144BSection 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under Section 143(1) had been issued. 10. Bearing the above legal principles, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case qua the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal for allowing 7 the assessee’s appeal. As mentioned above, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the assessing officer has not formed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ARSHIA GLOBAL TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED

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

ITAT/175/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

2 (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3 154 ITR 148 (SC) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 5 of 16 cash trail which was discussed by the CIT, he opined that those facts were not before the assessing officer when the scrutiny assessment order was passed on 27.03.2014. Further it was noted that sufficient material evidence has been passed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/285/2024HC Calcutta13 Aug 2025

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

Section 144Section 147Section 260A

31, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B- Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1285/Kol/2019 and ITA/1939/Kol/2019 both relating to the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal was not justified in quashing

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns