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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Section 151A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai152Chennai89Hyderabad63Delhi60Pune35Ahmedabad34Chandigarh26Visakhapatnam25Jaipur18Kolkata13Raipur10Rajkot6Agra5Surat4Amritsar4Lucknow4Guwahati3Bangalore2Indore2Nagpur2Dehradun1Karnataka1Cochin1Ranchi1

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

1), thus the order by the Ld.AO is without applying his mind and against the principle of law. 5) The appellant humbly submits that the order passed is bad in law and the additions made should be deleted. (a) Ld.AO erred in making addition amounting to Rs. 10,85,000 u/s 69 of the Act however had issued show cause

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