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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai451Delhi433Bangalore241Jaipur190Kolkata151Ahmedabad89Pune64Chennai61Ranchi54Chandigarh45Hyderabad44Raipur26Indore25Rajkot24Patna24Allahabad20Cuttack18Cochin17Surat14Amritsar14Telangana14Guwahati10Nagpur9Lucknow8Dehradun8Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Karnataka7Agra6Calcutta5SC3Rajasthan2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A30Section 153D25Section 27412Section 13210Section 1487Addition to Income7Section 69A6Section 271(1)(c)6Section 143(2)5Long Term Capital Gains

M/S. R.M. SAHA PETROLEUM AGENCY,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 226/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. RINU SINGH L/R OF JOY PRAKASH SINGH , TINSUKIA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 432/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed
5
Penalty4
Reassessment3
ITAT Guwahati
22 Jul 2020
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 Acit, Circle-Tinsukia Vs. Renu Singh The Legal Heir Of Late Jai Prakash Singh Jasoda Talkies Compound, Digboi-786171 Pan/Gir No. : Ahdps9100M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 309/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

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

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.8,94,55,000/- as unexplained credits with the aid of section 68 and Rs.26,83,650/- being commission paid by the assessee for arranging this bogus accommodation entry