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 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,623Mumbai2,124Bangalore831Chennai726Jaipur608Ahmedabad455Hyderabad438Kolkata391Chandigarh257Pune243Indore193Surat174Amritsar157Rajkot155Raipur148Visakhapatnam141Cochin107Guwahati94Karnataka82Nagpur73Cuttack71Agra67Lucknow66Patna62Telangana54Allahabad40Jodhpur36Dehradun36Ranchi33SC25Panaji15Orissa8Rajasthan6Calcutta5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Kerala3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1J&K1Gauhati1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 153D3Section 143(3)2

SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, Ground No.1

ITA 21/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153D

10 ITA.No.21/JAB/2019 Shri Tarachand Khatri, Jabalpur. after discussion with the A.O. in post-search investigation. The Department has collected the evidence in search and A.O. was stopped from making enquiry by filing letter in January, 2016. The letter of the assessee Dated 05.01.2016 has not been withdrawn. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded

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

10 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO the mandatory provisions of the Act/Rule. The failure of the Assessing Officer to verify the above mentioned facts and non-application of mind to give cognizance to the conditions specified in the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act, has made the assessment order erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial