BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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 39(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,594Mumbai1,403Bangalore566Chennai483Jaipur261Hyderabad260Ahmedabad259Kolkata213Chandigarh136Pune104Raipur102Amritsar83Indore76Rajkot65Surat61Nagpur56Lucknow46Patna42Agra38Allahabad37Guwahati36Visakhapatnam26Jodhpur25Cochin20SC18Cuttack15Karnataka14Telangana13Orissa8Kerala6Ranchi6Calcutta5Rajasthan4Dehradun4Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Jabalpur2Varanasi1Madhya Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Section 143(3)3Section 1433Section 1473Section 260A2Section 132(4)2Addition to Income2

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

39,05,410/- as against original return filed on 31.10.2007 under section 139 disclosing income of Rs.127,24,13,150/-. After the search and seizure operations and impounding of documents, the respondent/assessee declared an 4 undisclosed income of Rs.13,16,25,370/- which was added to the income disclosed in the returns apart from certain other additions.In the assessment order

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

1) of section 142. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section.]” 11. Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 starts with a non obstante clause and provides that where, in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income tax payable

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

39,462/- and Rs. 8,70,81,602/-, the assessing officer held the transactions to be not genuine as the assessee failed to produce the parties related to those transactions and the summons issued to them were also not complied with. Further the assessing officer pointed out that in the scrutiny assessment made under Section 143(3) dated

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

39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material was placed before us to suggest otherwise in course of the long hearing of these matters. 67. The Division Bench while passing the interim order on July 31, 2012 obviously considered the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be valid

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

39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material was placed before us to suggest otherwise in course of the long hearing of these matters. 67. The Division Bench while passing the interim order on July 31, 2012 obviously considered the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be valid