Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai27 Delhi24 Raipur18 Chennai16 Ahmedabad13 Jaipur12 Indore10 Bangalore10 Cochin7 Jodhpur6 Pune6 Hyderabad3 Chandigarh2 Patna2 Allahabad2 Visakhapatnam1 Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 80I9 Section 2633 Section 143(3)3 Section 69A3 Section 2502 Section 1472

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. SHIVALIK FILLING STATION, KHIZRABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 960/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 42Section 69A

194C, both tagged to the PAN of the dissolved firm. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under section 147, and reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

reassessment proceedings for the assessment year in question including ' the subsequent year as illegal and totally without jurisdiction:- "Present: Sh. A.K. Sood, CA. The Id. Counsel again submits that proceedings u/s 148 need to be dropped as there was no non disclosure by the assessee. He has again been told that the case is being proceeded with on merit