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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,354Mumbai5,816Chennai1,844Kolkata1,500Bangalore1,469Ahmedabad1,030Jaipur737Hyderabad726Pune522Raipur496Chandigarh425Surat385Indore337Rajkot294Amritsar291Visakhapatnam227Cochin223Karnataka214Cuttack194Patna174Nagpur167Agra130Lucknow128Guwahati126Dehradun114Ranchi105Telangana99Jodhpur78Allahabad63SC48Calcutta43Panaji42Jabalpur30Kerala17Orissa16Varanasi15Rajasthan12Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Himachal Pradesh2Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)45Section 14740Section 26333Reassessment30Section 260A29Reopening of Assessment21Addition to Income21Section 14818Section 153A15

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

ITAT/58/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv
Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260A

2) of the Act, the order passed by the Tribunal was perfectly legal and valid. The revenue also sought to rely upon Section 292BB 5 of the Act to justify their stand that notice is deemed to be valid and sought to bring the assessee’s case under the circumstances mentioned in Section 292BB. This question was considered

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

Section 143(2)12
Section 80H10
Bogus Purchases5

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

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

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

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

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 on the total income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

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

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

5 of 16 The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Kelvinator India Ltd.2 to support the contention that the reassessment proceeding was a case of change of opinion. Several other grounds were raised touching upon the merits of the matter. 4. The CIT(A) by order dated 30th July, 2019 substantially

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

5. V. Angidi Chattiar, 24 Shah, J., speaking for the court, while dealing with Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, observed: "The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about

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

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

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)

5 Officer cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 147 read with Section 148 to proceed with the reassessment. The ITAT further held that the jurisdiction to rectify the order under Section 154 of the Act cannot be exercised under Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/270/2024HC Calcutta17 Jul 2025

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

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/270/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 17th July, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan

M/S MAYUR VYAPAR PVT LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/35/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S R R SONS TRADING COMPANY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKA

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/26/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S HIGAIN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/28/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S KUMAR TRADERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/25/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S SUNIL FAN INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/30/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S RAMESHWAR LAL SAJJAN KUMAR (PRESENTLY VINSA ELECTRICAL P vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/33/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

M/S LEOPARD FINANCIERS PVT LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

ITAT/27/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

ITAT/420/2016HC Calcutta11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

2(iv) to Section 10B of the said Act ? 3 iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in not considering the fact that the assessee company had neither included the EMA or Foreign Exchange Gain due to fluctuation in its total income in order to claim an exemption