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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,359Delhi1,148Chennai641Bangalore510Ahmedabad347Jaipur338Kolkata255Hyderabad232Chandigarh185Pune179Indore132Raipur125Cochin105Rajkot81Visakhapatnam77Surat66Guwahati62Cuttack59Lucknow59Amritsar57Patna42Nagpur41Ranchi39Karnataka37Jodhpur29Agra25Telangana21SC18Dehradun17Allahabad17Jabalpur7Calcutta6Kerala5Rajasthan4Varanasi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati2Panaji2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Uttarakhand1Orissa1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)9Section 37(1)6Section 80I6Section 1475Section 249(4)(b)4Section 143(3)4Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 54E3

SHAKUNTALA SINGHVI,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 45Section 54E

reassessment, proceedings for which were initiated in view of the discrepancies that came to the notice of the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessee‟s share trading transactions, found to be in order in assessment, was the claim for exemption

Section 43D3
Disallowance3
Reassessment2

VISHWANATH SINGH RATHODE,HOSHANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, ITARSI

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

ITA 142/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

exempt receipts deposited in bank accounts as investments u/s 69 which is not justified and bad in law. Tax effect Rs. 2046353. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provision of 147 for 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

exempting deduction of tax at source on the filing of the declaration by the creditor/payee. The sums credited or paid prior to 01/10/2009 would not, clearly, and admittedly, be covered by the amended law effective 01/10/2009. The matter, accordingly, would stand to be restored to the file of the AO to verify the foregoing aspects, and decide in terms

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

exemption u/s. 80-P to cooperative banks being from, as afore-noted, AY 2007-08. Why, even the parallel with sec. 80-P is, to our mind, not well-founded. This is as the same is a deduction provision, which is w.r.t. the profits and gains, i.e., as computed under the provisions of the Act, while s. 43D relates

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

exemption u/s. 80-P to cooperative banks being from, as afore-noted, AY 2007-08. Why, even the parallel with sec. 80-P is, to our mind, not well-founded. This is as the same is a deduction provision, which is w.r.t. the profits and gains, i.e., as computed under the provisions of the Act, while s. 43D relates

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

exemption u/s. 80-P to cooperative banks being from, as afore-noted, AY 2007-08. Why, even the parallel with sec. 80-P is, to our mind, not well-founded. This is as the same is a deduction provision, which is w.r.t. the profits and gains, i.e., as computed under the provisions of the Act, while s. 43D relates

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

exempt under this section. The assessee should have got his accounts audited by statutory auditor before ,2 Bindra Warehousing Corporation v. ITO the due date of filing of IT return. Perusal of return of income filed by the assessee reveals that in Part A of general information of return, where there is specific column of details of audit u/s. 44AB