BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi222Mumbai175Ahmedabad96Chennai64Bangalore63Chandigarh63Hyderabad62Jaipur52Raipur39Pune24Cochin23Kolkata21Ranchi14Lucknow13Indore11Patna8Nagpur7Allahabad7Surat5Jodhpur5Amritsar5Dehradun4Cuttack4Guwahati3Rajkot1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14825Section 15113Section 148A9Section 1475

DINDAYAL AGARWAL,BERHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR., BERHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 471/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dindayal Agarwal Ito, Ward-1, Berhampur

For Appellant: Shri Pranaya Ku. Mishra, Prashant KumarFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

158 (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein it was held that where approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings was granted by Commissioner after expiry of 3 years from end of relevant assessment year, said approval should have been granted by Principal Chief Commissioner, thus, impugned

PRADYUMNA KUMAR LATH,JHARSUGUDA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE ,ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 820/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.820/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Pradyumna Kumar Lath, At-Dalki, Po: Jharsuguda, Dist: Jharsuguda-768201 Pan No. :Aaopl 7797 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

158 (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein it was held that where approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings was granted by Commissioner after expiry of 3 years from end of relevant assessment year, said approval should have been granted by Principal Chief Commissioner, thus, impugned

SRI PRATAP CHANDRA TRIPATHY,GANJAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, GANJAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 731/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.731/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-2017) Vs Ito, Ward-1, Berhampmur, Ganjam Sri Pratap Chandra Tripathy, Braja Nagar, 1St Lane, Lochapada Road, Berhampur, Ganjam-760001 Pan No. :Acfpt 5072 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

158 (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein it was held that where approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings was granted by Commissioner after expiry of 3 years from end of relevant assessment year, said approval should have been granted by Principal Chief Commissioner, thus, impugned

M G MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 402/CTK/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.402/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009) वष" M G Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 5A, Forest Park, Odisha Pan No. :Aaffm 2127 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर : Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh. A.K.Sabat, Cas राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.08.2024, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10098/2016-17 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067224134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [In Short "Cit (Appeals)") Dated 01.08.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act/ "Act] In Dismissing The Appeal Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Unjustified, Arbitrary, Erroneous, Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 6 of the MMDR Act. 1957, Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 27.01.1994 (EIA Notification, 1994) issued by MoEF) under Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and circular dated 25.4.2005 of MoEF issued in continuation to Circular dated 28.10.2004 being on mis- appreciation/misconstruing of the facts is incorrect, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts