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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 35(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,180Mumbai1,836Chennai651Bangalore633Jaipur516Ahmedabad423Hyderabad352Kolkata334Raipur321Chandigarh254Pune197Indore184Surat163Rajkot126Visakhapatnam124Amritsar124Cochin100Patna76Karnataka73Cuttack70Guwahati58Nagpur54Lucknow50Telangana47Agra38Ranchi36Dehradun31SC26Jodhpur23Allahabad22Orissa9Panaji8Calcutta6Jabalpur5Rajasthan5Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Varanasi3Uttarakhand1Madhya Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Section 143(1)2Section 132(4)2

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

3) SCC 207 (pragraphs 8, 10 & 11), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that issuance of notice to assessee under Section 274 is a consequence of prima facie satisfaction reached by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings regarding concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and held as follows: “8. The fact that notices

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/67/2025HC Calcutta08 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 8Th July, 2025.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

reassessment proceeding without appreciating and considering the fact that the assessee had delved into fictitious and suspicious transaction failing thereby to establish the genuineness of the transaction? We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether

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

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). He has contended that, test laid down

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

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). He has contended that, test laid down

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

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). He has contended that, test laid down

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

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). He has contended that, test laid down