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 u/s 147”+ Section 48(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi988Mumbai937Bangalore370Jaipur332Chennai279Ahmedabad249Hyderabad159Chandigarh150Kolkata147Pune100Raipur97Indore94Amritsar84Surat74Visakhapatnam69Rajkot54Guwahati40Cochin36Lucknow34Allahabad34Cuttack29Nagpur29Patna28Telangana28Jodhpur27Karnataka16Dehradun13Agra12Panaji5Orissa4SC2Jabalpur2Calcutta1Rajasthan1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 153C5Section 271(1)(c)5Section 2633Section 153A(1)3Section 153C(1)2Section 142(1)2Section 143(3)2Section 1152

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)

147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged in appeal', attaining finality. 2.2 In the penalty proceedings, initiated on 21.3.2016, the assessee's explanation

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)

48, 49) during assessment proceedings, were found satisfactory by the AO. As such, he did not deem it necessary to extend the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment, for which only the notice u/s. 143(2) stood issued. The enhancement in the scope of assessment or, more precisely, the scope of inquiry therein, for which there is thus no reason