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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,497Mumbai2,370Chennai675Bangalore614Jaipur551Ahmedabad487Kolkata434Hyderabad365Chandigarh277Pune256Indore173Raipur167Surat150Amritsar140Rajkot138Cochin125Visakhapatnam118Nagpur82Patna76Cuttack71Guwahati71Lucknow68Agra64Telangana59Karnataka59Allahabad41Dehradun39Jodhpur35SC19Panaji11Calcutta9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Orissa7Rajasthan6Kerala5Varanasi3Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)9Section 1477Section 2637Section 37(1)6Addition to Income6Section 1485Reassessment4Reopening of Assessment4Section 153D3

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

ITA 29/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 263

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 28/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed
Section 54E3
Section 43D3
Capital Gains3
ITAT Jabalpur
08 Jun 2022
AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 263

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

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

50,00,000/- being amount disclosed before ADIT and not shown in return of income. 2. The addition made is null and void as it is not arising out of any seized material. 3. The approval given by JCIT u/s.153D is without application of mind.” 2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceeding was bad in law. The assessment order and CIT (A) order is bad in law for other reasons too. 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not required to file the return of income as her income was below taxable limit. 4. On facts and in circumstances of the case

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

section 143(3) of the Act dated 11/12/2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The sole issue leading to the revision of the assessee‟s 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

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

50,10,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144 of the Act dated 03.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the assesseement order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and the additions by the A.O. Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee, findings

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

50%, the total provision for overdue interest would as at the year-end would be Rs. 6000, i.e., Rs. 4000 reflected as such, and Rs. 2000 under the A/c head ‘Provision for bad & doubtful assets’, which would therefore also require being reduced to that extent. There may be a carry-over of such provision for unrealized interest, as where

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

50%, the total provision for overdue interest would as at the year-end would be Rs. 6000, i.e., Rs. 4000 reflected as such, and Rs. 2000 under the A/c head ‘Provision for bad & doubtful assets’, which would therefore also require being reduced to that extent. There may be a carry-over of such provision for unrealized interest, as where

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

50%, the total provision for overdue interest would as at the year-end would be Rs. 6000, i.e., Rs. 4000 reflected as such, and Rs. 2000 under the A/c head ‘Provision for bad & doubtful assets’, which would therefore also require being reduced to that extent. There may be a carry-over of such provision for unrealized interest, as where