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 66(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,386Mumbai961Chennai395Bangalore374Ahmedabad220Jaipur211Kolkata198Hyderabad162Chandigarh116Raipur84Pune78Rajkot55Indore52Telangana48Surat41Patna40Guwahati39Karnataka33Lucknow33Amritsar31Ranchi27Cochin22Nagpur20Allahabad17Visakhapatnam16Cuttack14Jodhpur12SC11Dehradun9Orissa7Agra7Calcutta6Rajasthan4Kerala3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Varanasi2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1473Section 143(3)3Section 1433Section 260A2

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to justify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee failed to produce original cash memos and bills for the sales alleged to have been effected and to substantiate the cash deposit into their bank accounts. During the scrutiny assessment based on the information received from the investigation wing, notice under Section 142(1

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

66. The interim order dated July 31, 2012 passed by the Division Bench is still continuing. The appeals are yet to be disposed of. In fact, the appeals would be disposed of, if we do so, by this judgement 39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material

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

66. The interim order dated July 31, 2012 passed by the Division Bench is still continuing. The appeals are yet to be disposed of. In fact, the appeals would be disposed of, if we do so, by this judgement 39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material

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

66. The interim order dated July 31, 2012 passed by the Division Bench is still continuing. The appeals are yet to be disposed of. In fact, the appeals would be disposed of, if we do so, by this judgement 39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material

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

66. The interim order dated July 31, 2012 passed by the Division Bench is still continuing. The appeals are yet to be disposed of. In fact, the appeals would be disposed of, if we do so, by this judgement 39 and order. As on date therefore, the interim order dated July 31, 2012 is still continuing. At least no material