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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi335Mumbai323Bangalore162Jaipur99Amritsar72Chandigarh54Chennai53Kolkata52Ahmedabad45Pune32Raipur29Hyderabad28Rajkot27Patna22Cochin20Indore18Agra16Jodhpur11Surat11Cuttack9Lucknow6Visakhapatnam5Dehradun5Telangana5Nagpur4Allahabad3SC2Varanasi2Ranchi1Kerala1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 12A6Section 1475Addition to Income4Section 271(1)(b)3Section 69A3Section 234A3Section 113Penalty3Section 43(1)

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices were not served on the assessee at the correct address or email ID. Consequently, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "69A", "250", "142(1)", "234A", "234B", "282

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2
ITA 64/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

section 148(1), it is mandatory that notice u/s\n148 should be served on the assessee. As observed above, in the\ninstant case, the AO despite of having information of the correct\naddress and correct email id had served the notice u/s 148 as well\nas subsequent notices on the incorrect address and further the\nemail ID which notice

M/S. JAYCEES PUBLIC SCHOOL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv and Sh. Shrey Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

Section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 148/143(3), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 736/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 43Section 43(1)

282 (S.C.) it had been held that it is settled law that no income can be said to accrue or arise unless there is an acknowledgment of the debt by the payer to the payee. Unless there was acknowledgment of debt, no real income could be said to result and income tax could only be levied only on real income

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

section 148(1), it is mandatory that notice u/s 148 should be served on the assessee. As observed above, in the instant case, the AO despite of having information of the correct address and correct email id had served the notice u/s 148 as well as subsequent notices on the incorrect address and further the email ID which notice