BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Section 151Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai154Chennai96Hyderabad63Delhi58Pune35Ahmedabad33Visakhapatnam27Chandigarh26Jaipur19Kolkata13Raipur10Rajkot6Agra5Lucknow5Amritsar4Surat4Guwahati3Bangalore2Indore2Patna2Dehradun1Cochin1Nagpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 148A3Section 1482Section 142(1)2Addition to Income2

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 7) Ld. Officer has erred in not furnishing the copy of approval u/s 151 of 1.T.Act, 1961 and notice u/s 143(2) of 1.T.Act

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

151A of the Act. Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits of the case. 4(i). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action