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”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai644Delhi453Chennai275Kolkata253Bangalore201Jaipur173Ahmedabad109Pune91Chandigarh86Hyderabad79Indore62Raipur58Visakhapatnam55Rajkot48Cuttack41Cochin39Amritsar27Nagpur25Agra24Patna21Allahabad21Lucknow15Surat15Jodhpur14Karnataka10Jabalpur7Dehradun7Guwahati5Ranchi4Varanasi3Calcutta3SC2Himachal Pradesh2Kerala1Rajasthan1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26321Section 143(3)9Section 2546Revision u/s 2635Section 153A4Section 1474Section 1542Section 153(3)(ii)2Addition to Income2Undisclosed Income

VINAY BAWRI,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/GTY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 263(1)

revised the original assessment as framed vide order dated 15.12.2015, however, the same 3 Vinay Bawri, AY 2013-14 is hopelessly barred by limitation and, therefore, the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. In defense of his argument, Ld. Counsel relied on the decision passed

2

KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/GTY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 263

revise the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143(3) dated 03.12.2018. Assessee furnished its reply to the show cause notice stating, 4 Kaushik Industries Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2011-12 inter alia, that case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 only to examine the cash deposit made by the assessee in its bank account which were duly explained to the satisfaction

SHRI PRABAL ROY CHOUDHURY,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263

revision under section 263 as the notice is filled with malpractice facts and figures 3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prabal Roy Choudhury, Silchar and detection of the case is null and void. Thus seeking your natural justification. 3. In response to notice, Shri Anup Dutta, M. Com/ITP appeared as A/R. He gave written submission and explanation. 4. The ground

JANARDAN MISRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

ITA 260/GTY/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

u/s. 254 of the said Act, as mentioned in section 153(3)(ii) thereof, the appellant seeks to refer to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1979) 120 ITR in this respect, more particularly the following paragraph from the judgment at pages 18-19 of the Reports: ‘The expression “finding

JANARDAN MISHRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

ITA 261/GTY/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

u/s. 254 of the said Act, as mentioned in section 153(3)(ii) thereof, the appellant seeks to refer to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1979) 120 ITR in this respect, more particularly the following paragraph from the judgment at pages 18-19 of the Reports: ‘The expression “finding