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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 272A(2)(k)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai15Mumbai11Delhi11Pune9Cuttack8Hyderabad5Amritsar3Jaipur3Nagpur2Chandigarh2Raipur2SC1Ahmedabad1Indore1Rajkot1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Section 271(1)(c)21Section 6814Section 14714Penalty10Section 272A(2)(k)9Addition to Income8Section 143(1)7Reopening of Assessment7Section 271(1)(b)

M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3273/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Before Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja & Sh. Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.C. Dandey, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

272A(2)(k), however, the courts have held that such penalty proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Supra) has held that initiation of proceedings under 5 Section 201 against the assessee in respect of the assessment year

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

3
Section 32
TDS2
ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

272A. 4.3 Thus, in the facts of present case there was a information the appellant is engaged in suspected tax evasion by transferring or keeping funds overseas in an illicit manner. The appellant is suspected of having opened and maintained undisclosed bank account overseas and was required to sign the "consent form" to verify the allegation. It is the duty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

ITA/272/2019HC Delhi12 Nov 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 133ASection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206Section 271CSection 272A(2)(c)Section 292BSection 3

272A(2)(k) of the Act, thereby, penalizing the assesseee for non-deduction of TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

K. Agarwal 19,00,000 19,00,000 DCPL 9,00,000 Vineeta Gupta EFL 2012-13 Cash 96,00,000 EFL 2,14,24,575 2013-14 AAL 69,19,221 Vineeta Gupta 2009-10 AFL 1,63,00,000 Cash 2,37,00,000 EFL 45,15,700 Vineeta Gupta in Newwave 2012-13 Cash

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 79/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 78/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6017/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 584/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 1029/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 585/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 3299/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first