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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi399Mumbai224Chennai98Jaipur60Bangalore57Kolkata43Hyderabad42Raipur41Chandigarh37Ahmedabad37Indore22Allahabad16Visakhapatnam11Lucknow11Surat10Guwahati10Pune9Cuttack7Amritsar6Agra5Cochin5SC4Rajkot4Telangana3Karnataka3Patna2Nagpur2Rajasthan1Dehradun1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 1478Section 2636Addition to Income5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 143(2)4Section 1484Section 374Section 143(3)4Reopening of Assessment4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

reassessment under Section 147(b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Condonation of Delay4
Section 1543
Revision u/s 2632
ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

reassessment under Section 147(b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

reassessment under Section 147(b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

reassessment under Section 147(b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee

MIDWAY MOTORS \PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 148/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.148/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Midway Motors Private Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.554, Nuapada Chaak, Madhupatna, Cuttack-753010 Pan No. :Aajcm 8153 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 11.01.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038622483(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That There Is Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Present Appeal, Which Was Due To Death Of The Accountant Of The Assessee, Who Was Looking After The Tax Matters Of The Assessee. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False & The Reasons Given Are Found To Be Reasonable. Consequently, The Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.CIT(OSD)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

207 (Orissa), the order passed u/s.263 of the Act being one made without proper enquiry is liable to be quashed. 5. In reply, ld. CIT-Dr submitted that the assessment order is a non- speaking order and it is a very cryptic order which shows the non- application of mind by the AO. It was the submission that the revenue

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY,PATIA BHUNANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.177/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemption), Hyderabad Technology, Patia, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaatk 3103 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

207 (Orissa), as read out by the ld. CIT-DR, categorically shows that after hearing the assessee, to pass an order by making "such enquiry as he deems necessary". In the present case, clearly no enquiry has been done by the ld. CIT(E). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the said case further goes

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 23/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR

Section 17(3) of SICA. The OA submitted Draft Rehabilitation Scheme to the BIFR on 20.02.2008. After hearing the concerned parties BIFR finally sanctioned the Scheme based on its final hearing held on 02.09.2008 and issued the same vide its letter dated 03.10.2008. As per the Sanctioned Scheme, various unsecured creditors foregone a substantial amount of their outstanding amount