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 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi223Mumbai148Bangalore66Jaipur52Hyderabad51Rajkot41Chandigarh36Ahmedabad34Chennai30Kolkata30Raipur30Amritsar25Allahabad22Pune17Surat16Ranchi15Lucknow12Indore11Patna8Agra8Cuttack4Cochin3Nagpur3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 270A20Section 14812Section 404Section 1472Section 148A2Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2Penalty2

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal as well as on merits also

ITA 258/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Aug 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 31Section 68

Section 292 B is for blocking Page7|8 Assessment Year : 2018-2019 the invalidation for reasons of any mistake, defect or omission to protect a notice which has been issued without jurisdiction. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer who has issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act, did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the instruction

SHREE DEOSHARWALI OIL INDUSTRIES,GOVINDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARGARH, BSF NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-2019 2019 Shree Shree Deosharwali Deosharwali Oil Oil Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Industries, Industries, Salepali Salepali Bargarh, Bsf Nagar. Nh Bargarh, Bsf Nagar. Nh Govindpur, Bargarh Govindpur, Bargarh Street, Bandu Vikira Chowk, Street, Bandu Vikira Chowk, 1St Floor, Bargarh Floor, Bargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Acbfs 4179 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ca Sunil Surana, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

reassessment is bad in law. 2. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when notice u/s.148A(b) is bad in law since it provided less than 7 days to comply and therefore, the entire assessment is bad in law. 3. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ODISHA vs. ODISHA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 359/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 40

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

Section 144Section 270(9)(c)Section 270ASection 274Section 9

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant