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 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai55Delhi40Ahmedabad9Kolkata7Bangalore3Jaipur2Chennai2Cochin2Hyderabad2Karnataka2Pune2Surat1Rajkot1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 1543Section 1472Section 115J2Section 234A2Addition to Income2

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

reassessment proceeding the assessee company categorically placed on record all the relevant facts along with supporting evidences [PB 36-46]. However, ld. AO failed to appreciate that the assessee company had not created any provision for writing off the asset or for diminution in its value but had actually written off the asset being non-recoverable. 12. In the below

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

reassessment, which was made prior to resorting to this rectification—This disallowance could not be made while acting u/s 154 reason being this was not prima facie mistake it was a highly debatable issue—Held, it was clear from above that deletion of Rs.67,33,445 allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) could not be said to have been