Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

12 results for “reassessment”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Indore39 Delhi30 Mumbai29 Pune24 Panaji20 Chennai13 Raipur13 Jaipur12 Patna11 Kolkata11 Nagpur8 Chandigarh8 Cuttack6 Bangalore6 Amritsar4 Lucknow3 Visakhapatnam3 Jodhpur1 Hyderabad1 Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271D16 Section 271E16 Section 14714 Addition to Income8 Section 269S6 Section 143(3)6 Section 271(1)(c)6 Section 234A5 Penalty5 Natural Justice

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5

Limitation/Time-bar4

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the additional grounds of appeal as well as original ground of appeal no

ITA 1065/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (FCA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

246A(1)(a) of the Act where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act, he can prefer appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the assessee had preferred the present appeal within time allowed under the law. 10. Regarding fourth additional ground of appeal taken by the Revenue, it was submitted that the said ground

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

reassessment notice is required to be issued by an Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued. Based on the evidence placed on record and after giving sufficient time to the revenue to rebut the contention based on the set of evidence placed on record, but revenue could not demonstrate that when

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

reassessment notice is required to be issued by an Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued. Based on the evidence placed on record and after giving sufficient time to the revenue to rebut the contention based on the set of evidence placed on record, but revenue could not demonstrate that when

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

reassessment proceedings initiated against him were unjustified - Held, yes [Para 18] [In favour of assessee 18. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner as well as the observations made by the respondent-Assessing Officer in the impugned order passed under section 148A(d)wherein, it is not disputed that the petitioner is working

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

246A and 80P, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Form of appeal and limitation (Condonation of delay) - Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by assessee under section 80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. POONIA WINES, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 141/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment has been challenged. Hence, this addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7. The Revenue is aggrieved from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) preferred this appeal and since the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, the assessee has also preferred cross objection. 8. Since the issue in the appeal

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

246A of the IT Act, before the ld. CIT, (Appeals) which got transferred to NFAC, Delhi in 11 Ram Niwas Yadav vs. ITO pursuance to Notification no. 76/2020/F.N. 3701142/33/2020/TPL dated 25.09.2020. 7. That, assessee submitted its written submissions dated 16.01.2019 along with supporting documents in the said appeal and further submitted an application dated 09.02.2019 under Rule

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

section 144/147 of Income tax Act but not received by him. Assessee received copy of reassessment order on 15.10.2019 through mailing address of his ld. A/R. against which appeal under sec. 246A