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 234B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi671Mumbai606Bangalore293Ahmedabad112Jaipur87Hyderabad81Chennai77Kolkata69Pune49Rajkot26Agra26Indore24Surat23Cochin22Nagpur21Lucknow18Chandigarh18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Patna14Amritsar14Allahabad10Cuttack7Karnataka7Ranchi7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Raipur3SC3Telangana2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 6810Section 234B9Section 143(3)6Section 234C6Section 153D5Addition to Income4Section 153C3Section 1483Natural Justice3Capital Gains

SMT. MOUMITA SAHA ,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/GTY/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 153BSection 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 153DSection 69

234B and 234C of the Act being not in accordance with the law, the same is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 7. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 2 I.T.A. No.239/Gau/2017

3
Section 2502
Reassessment2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act according to law. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c0 have been initiated separately by issue of notice u/s 274. (B.V. GERANGAL) Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3), New Delhi”. 4 M/s. Toor Finance Company Limited 5. We find that the ld. Assessing Officer has made two additions, namely Rs.8

SMT. SARAJ DEVI BAWRI ,DIMAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - DIMAPUR , DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/GTY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234BSection 234C

reassessment notice, return was filed in this respect and taxes were paid. The AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act has accepted the returned income. However, interest u/s. 234B at Rs.18,58,833/- and u/s. 234C at Rs.1,35,913/- have been levied. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 49/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

1. That the order of the CIT-Appeals in so far as it is against the assessee is opposed to law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity all other known principles of law. 2. The AO erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the appellant as required under law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, hence the order

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 51/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

1. That the order of the CIT-Appeals in so far as it is against the assessee is opposed to law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity all other known principles of law. 2. The AO erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the appellant as required under law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, hence the order