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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 48(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,497Mumbai1,468Bangalore493Chennai460Jaipur397Ahmedabad297Kolkata237Hyderabad206Chandigarh180Pune138Indore126Surat111Amritsar109Raipur106Visakhapatnam90Cochin64Rajkot64Karnataka47Patna45Cuttack44Telangana43Nagpur42Allahabad42Lucknow42Guwahati40Agra39Jodhpur32Dehradun20SC20Orissa7Panaji6Calcutta5Ranchi4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Kerala2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Madhya Pradesh1J&K1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2634Section 1474Section 143(3)2Section 1312

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

2), Kolkata through their letter dated 27.2.2019 that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.2,48,50,000/- from Sandeep Roy, proprietor of M/s. Sarika Trading Company. Notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act and on 15.11.2019 show cause notices were issued by the assessing officer in course of reassessment

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

48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying the test

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

48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying the test

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

48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying the test

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

48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying the test