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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai414Delhi241Chennai82Bangalore63Raipur61Ahmedabad60Chandigarh58Jaipur55Surat45Hyderabad40Kolkata35Pune31Amritsar24Indore21Rajkot16Cochin14Lucknow12Jodhpur10Guwahati8Nagpur6Agra4Panaji3Cuttack3Patna2Dehradun1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 1485Section 2634Section 143(2)3Addition to Income3Section 1472Section 153A2Reassessment2Limitation/Time-bar2

SHRI RADHA KRISHNA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,KALUNGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ACIT CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiashri Radha Krishna Ispat Private A.C.I.T., Limited, Circle Rourkela, Vs. Plot No. 19-P, Kalunga, Gaibhanga, Rourkela. Sundergarh, Odisha-770031, Rourkela. Pan No. Aaics 5551 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

254(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w. Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the following additional grounds which could not be taken specifically and separately and which do not involve investigation into fresh facts but go the very root of the assessment, may kindly be admitted in the interests of justice as the same challenges the 'legality

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. Rajendra Rajendra Prasad Prasad Gupta, Gupta, Income Tax, Central Cir Income Tax, Central Circle, 1/15, 1/15, Civil Civil Township, Township, Sambalpur Rourkela-769004 769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Abdpg 9284 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Padhi, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid and SudarshanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

254 of the Act. On receipt of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT/High Court, as the case may be, necessary action as per law and extant instruction should be taken. Suggestive template for Miscellaneous Application and Notice of Motion is attached for reference purpose. The facts of the case will be required to be mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application

OMM DHANA LAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. PCIT, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Omm Dhanalaxmi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Jewellers, Bazar Chowk, Main Road, Angul-759122 Pan/Gir No.Aagfd 8791 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 30.3.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) That The Ld. Pr Cit Bhubaneswar Has Erred In Law By Utilizing Section 263 For Directing The Assessing Officer To Do Necessary Verification As Per The Order Of Hon'Ble Itat Cuttack Bench Vide Order Dated 01-10-2019 Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Provisions Of 263 Does Not Allow To Proceed For A Matter Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Hence, The Order Passed Us 263 Needs To Be Quashed In To.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 263

1 | 17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 2) That the Ld. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar has erred in law by invoking section 263 on the order passed u/s 147 which itself was without jurisdiction and not legally sustainable. Hence the order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and needs to be annulled. 3) That the order