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.

8 results for “reassessment”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai518Delhi309Chennai232Jaipur192Ahmedabad179Bangalore126Raipur80Kolkata65Hyderabad61Indore57Chandigarh55Nagpur54Pune51Surat35Visakhapatnam27Lucknow26Guwahati24Rajkot23Cochin14Agra13Ranchi11Patna9Cuttack8Amritsar4Jodhpur2Dehradun2Panaji1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14828Section 15116Section 14712Section 271(1)(c)8Reopening of Assessment8Addition to Income8Section 271(1)(b)4Section 69A4Section 143(2)4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

Section 374
Short Term Capital Gains4
Unexplained Money4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 87/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 90/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 91/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

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 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Short question for our adjudication is, whether solely\non the basis of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah Commission report can\nit be construed that the assessee has exported iron ore by under-\ninvoicing the price, which requires to be added in the taxable income?\n16. First contention raised by the Ld.counsel for the assessee was that\nthe 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

Short question for our adjudication is, whether solely\non the basis of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah Commission report can\nit be construed that the assessee has exported iron ore by under-\ninvoicing the price, which requires to be added in the taxable income?\n16. First contention raised by the Ld.counsel for the assessee was that\nthe 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

Short question for our adjudication is, whether solely\non the basis of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah Commission report can\nit be construed that the assessee has exported iron ore by under-\ninvoicing the price, which requires to be added in the taxable income?\n16. First contention raised by the Ld.counsel for the assessee was that\nthe 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 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Short question for our adjudication is, whether solely\non the basis of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah Commission report can\nit be construed that the assessee has exported iron ore by under-\ninvoicing the price, which requires to be added in the taxable income?\n16. First contention raised by the Ld.counsel for the assessee was that\nthe assessee