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.

2 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 80P(2)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai33Chennai19Jaipur16Bangalore11Delhi10Ahmedabad9Hyderabad9Visakhapatnam8Kolkata7Cochin6Jodhpur6Pune5Amritsar4Karnataka4Panaji2Chandigarh2Nagpur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 80P6Section 139(1)4Section 1474Section 2502Deduction2Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2Disallowance

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

80P(2)(d) of the Act and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. Strictly in the alternative and without prejudice to Ground No. 4, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in holding that the assessee was not eligible to claim expenses u/s 57 of the Act against the FDR income which

2
Limitation/Time-bar2

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 67/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

80P(2)(d) of the Act and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. Strictly in the alternative and without prejudice to Ground No. 4, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in holding that the assessee was not eligible to claim expenses u/s 57 of the Act against the FDR income which