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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 249(4)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai323Delhi322Kolkata115Jaipur93Ahmedabad85Bangalore74Chennai62Chandigarh46Indore39Nagpur36Hyderabad32Surat31Raipur31Pune31Amritsar25Patna20Ranchi15Panaji12Jabalpur7Lucknow7Guwahati7Cochin7Jodhpur6Dehradun6Visakhapatnam5Rajkot4Karnataka3Telangana3Cuttack3SC2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1474Section 1483Section 363Section 44A3Section 2492Section 147o2Section 143(3)2Section 80P2Reassessment2

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE2(1), CUTTACK CIRCLE, CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 36/CTK/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 249

4. That the entire reassessment proceeding for the A/Y-2010-11 & 2011-12 completely stands on such borrowed information, wherein the Ld. A.O has arrived at an erroneous conclusion under pretense that the appellant company carried on illegal mining activities for which there are possibilities of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. As a consequence

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD.,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 37/CTK/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 249

4. That the entire reassessment proceeding for the A/Y-2010-11 & 2011-12 completely stands on such borrowed information, wherein the Ld. A.O has arrived at an erroneous conclusion under pretense that the appellant company carried on illegal mining activities for which there are possibilities of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. As a consequence

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

section 147. However, on receipt of representations from / companies against omission of the words 'reason to believe', the Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word 'opinion' on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer (Para 4) i. The following judgments arc also relied upon: C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year