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.

101 results for “reassessment”+ Section 206(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi309Mumbai281Chennai107Jaipur101Ahmedabad83Bangalore68Chandigarh43Kolkata38Raipur38Pune26Hyderabad22Nagpur18Cochin16Surat12Indore11Visakhapatnam10Lucknow10Allahabad10Amritsar9Rajkot6Panaji3Karnataka3Jodhpur3SC3Telangana2Ranchi2Dehradun1Orissa1Patna1Rajasthan1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)121Addition to Income78Section 6846Section 153A43Section 13240Section 14839Section 14737Search & Seizure31Section 15323Disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

19
Section 14417
Natural Justice16
ITAT Jaipur
31 Dec 2018
AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1024/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1104/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1026/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1103/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1230/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1101/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1100/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

ITA 1102/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1025/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

6 to 9 as under :- 6. “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

ITA 1099/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1027/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

ITA 1098/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1028/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

ITA 1096/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

ITA 1097/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 153Section 68

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that