Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,635 Delhi2,067 Chennai915 Bangalore824 Jaipur597 Kolkata483 Ahmedabad463 Hyderabad397 Pune311 Chandigarh252 Indore175 Cochin159 Visakhapatnam151 Surat143 Rajkot136 Raipur132 Cuttack121 Amritsar108 Karnataka95 Nagpur75 Lucknow64 Telangana60 Patna58 Guwahati49 Jodhpur49 Agra41 Dehradun30 SC29 Ranchi26 Allahabad25 Panaji11 Calcutta10 Jabalpur9 Kerala8 Rajasthan7 Orissa4 Varanasi4 Punjab & Haryana3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)15 Section 26312 Section 36(1)(viia)9 Section 142(1)6 Section 37(1)6 Section 80I6 Deduction6 Addition to Income6 Section 1485 Section 147

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

deduction having been allowed for any interest paid in reassessment framed there remains no scope for any enquiry about deduction

5

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

deduction having been allowed for any interest paid in reassessment framed there remains no scope for any enquiry about deduction

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

deduction u/s. 80-IB. The assessee’s contention that the reason recorded only speaks of the requirement of audit (u/s. 80IB), which had in fact been undertaken, though the audit report not furnished along with the return of income, but only during the reassessment

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

deduction shall be made from any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year to the account of a contractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, on the furnishing of his Permanent Account Number, to the person paying or crediting such sum. (7) The person responsible

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

deductible u/s. 36(1)(viia), so that any reason without reference to the said section cannot be a proper ground to entertain a reason to believe an excess claim qua the said provision and, thus, an escapement of income chargeable to tax on that basis. Further, the AO having not referred to the said section in his reason/s recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

deductible u/s. 36(1)(viia), so that any reason without reference to the said section cannot be a proper ground to entertain a reason to believe an excess claim qua the said provision and, thus, an escapement of income chargeable to tax on that basis. Further, the AO having not referred to the said section in his reason/s recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

deductible u/s. 36(1)(viia), so that any reason without reference to the said section cannot be a proper ground to entertain a reason to believe an excess claim qua the said provision and, thus, an escapement of income chargeable to tax on that basis. Further, the AO having not referred to the said section in his reason/s recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment dated 21/3/2016, thus, had no tax impact inasmuch as the tax payable was only consequent to the deemed total income u/s. 115-JB. No penalty, even as explained in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 543 (Del), is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) under such circumstances. Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the said decision has been

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

reassessment proceedings, for the benefit of the 5 | P a g e Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT Revenue. Suffice to state that we find the assessment proceedings to have been validly initiated, and the absence of jurisdictional fact for proceeding u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C. The finality of concluded proceedings cannot be lightly, if at all, disturbed