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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai65Delhi33Ahmedabad29Hyderabad28Bangalore24Raipur19Jaipur17Surat8Kolkata3Chandigarh3Guwahati2Rajkot2Dehradun2Varanasi1Lucknow1Nagpur1Pune1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 106Section 143(2)6Section 1474Section 143(3)4Section 1484Section 10(2688)2Section 234A2Section 271(1)(c)2Penalty2Reassessment

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3071/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(2688)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are bad in law and not sustainable in law under the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as there was neither any willful concealment of income nor did the appellant furnish inaccurate particulars on income

2
Addition to Income2

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3072/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(2688)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are bad in law and not sustainable in law under the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as there was neither any willful concealment of income nor did the appellant furnish inaccurate particulars on income