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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 263(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai991Delhi774Kolkata447Bangalore371Chennai327Jaipur227Ahmedabad193Hyderabad134Pune126Chandigarh122Indore91Raipur82Visakhapatnam67Rajkot64Cuttack63Nagpur48Cochin48Surat42Karnataka36Agra32Amritsar32Patna32Lucknow31Jodhpur29Guwahati26Allahabad23Dehradun18Calcutta13Telangana13SC12Jabalpur10Ranchi6Panaji6Kerala4Varanasi4Rajasthan3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26347Section 143(3)14Section 14713Section 260A11Reassessment11Section 80H10Section 689Addition to Income8Section 1515Limitation/Time-bar

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
5
Revision u/s 2635
Section 142(1)4

reassessment. Section 191 places an embargo on the declarant to the effect that any amount of tax and surcharge paid under Section 181 or penalty paid under Section 182 in pursuance of a declaration under Section 180 shall not be refundable. Section 193 deals with declaration by misrepresentation of facts to be void. The said provision commences with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

ITAT/148/2023HC Calcutta17 Jul 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

ITAT/240/2024HC Calcutta01 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Advocate
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 260ASection 263

1) of the Act and specifically denied the alleged transaction with Sandeep Roy or his firm, M/s. Sarika Trading Company and submitted that such allegation was not supported by any document or evidence. While so, an assessment order was passed under section 263 read with section 144 of the Act on 6.12.2019 adding the entire share capital again

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

1 (Delhi) [FB] which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. Taking note of the factual position namely, with regard to the proceedings initiated under Section 154 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that before the reassessment the opinion of the assessing officer underwent a series of changes from the original assessment order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the both appeals fail and are dismissed

ITAT/77/2025HC Calcutta03 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 3Rd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...For Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 263

1,51,00,000/- made on account of receipts from shell companies by way of accommodation entries to evade tax despite the fact that there were materials available on record to establish the live link/nexus between the assessee and accommodation entry provider? We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. First, we take up for consideration ITAT/77/2025 which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

ITAT/32/2022HC Calcutta15 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

Section 260ASection 263Section 69C

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in quashing the order passed by the PCIT-10, Kolkata u/s. 263 of the Act ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse

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

reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on the basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified. The relevant part of the order of the HOn‟ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “4. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/155/2025HC Calcutta14 Jan 2026

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 14Th January, 2026

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 68

section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax? V. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not taking the cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in PCIT (Cen- 1) vs NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited? VI. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by not appreciating

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA

The appeal is dismissed and the questions of law are

ITAT/252/2023HC Calcutta22 Jan 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 22Nd January, 2024 Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Sr. Adv. …For Respondent

Section 143Section 147Section 260ASection 263

263 of the said Act ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143[3] 2 read with Section 147 dated 28.12.2018 concluded that the source of investment is made out of accumulated Bank balance of the assessee, whereas as per records the said accumulated Bank balance has come from sale of penny share M/s. Tuni

JNJ FINANCE COMPANY PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I

Appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/219/2015HC Calcutta11 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Assessee Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated August 10, 2015, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2008- 09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Is Correct In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Order Dated 27.12.2010 Passed In Pursuance Of The Proceedings U/S 147 On Specific Issue & Wherein The Subject Matter Of The Share

Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

1 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 11th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …for appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed

M/S METROCITY DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) KOLKATA & ORS

ITAT/318/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

ITAT/339/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

1 of 2017 (Old No. GA 3504 of 2017) for condonation of delay is allowed. Re.: ITAT No.339 of 2017 This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata