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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 153(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,118Mumbai1,410Chennai552Bangalore523Jaipur279Hyderabad256Kolkata194Chandigarh141Ahmedabad129Amritsar120Pune92Surat77Raipur74Indore69Visakhapatnam62Guwahati59Cochin54Karnataka53Lucknow46Cuttack45Nagpur41Telangana39Dehradun38Patna37Rajkot31Ranchi27Allahabad22Jodhpur22SC16Panaji15Jabalpur5Agra5Punjab & Haryana5Calcutta5Orissa4Rajasthan3Gauhati2Varanasi2Kerala2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 153A18Section 1477Section 2506Section 271(1)(c)6Section 158B6Section 1326Section 1444Section 255(4)4Reassessment4Cash Deposit

KALYANIKA INFRA MEGA VENTURES PVT. LTD,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 49/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 113Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153ASection 158BSection 255(4)

reassessment made under sub- section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153

2
Penalty2
Reopening of Assessment2

TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 50/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 113Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153ASection 158BSection 255(4)

reassessment made under sub- section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge of A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh Jat non-compliance, and in fact, made multiple efforts to clarify and participate once the matter came to light. 3. Prayer for Parity With AY 2014-15: Same Facts, Penalty

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge of A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh Jat non-compliance, and in fact, made multiple efforts to clarify and participate once the matter came to light. 3. Prayer for Parity With AY 2014-15: Same Facts, Penalty

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

153(2)). There is in fact no, nor could be any, dispute on this aspect of the matter. The assessment proceedings were accordingly commenced, and the subsequent death of the MKJ during the assessment proceedings would not operate to disrupt or impair this jurisdiction, 2 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO since validly assumed, in any manner. Assessment was finally framed