BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore24Cochin18Mumbai14Chennai10Surat9Delhi8Indore6Ahmedabad6Jaipur6Amritsar5Hyderabad3Jabalpur2Kolkata1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 269S10Section 272A(1)(d)10Section 142(1)9Section 271D8Section 271C6Penalty6Limitation/Time-bar4Section 273B3Section 2693Section 147

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

273B of the Act. The explanation provided by the appellant was ignored without proper reasoning, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. The penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) is excessive and arbitrary, particularly in light of the appellant’s full compliance with other statutory notices and submissions during the assessment proceedings. The penalty ought to be quashed

2
Natural Justice2
Cash Deposit2

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

273B of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the introductory purpose of Section 269SS under XXB of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel, 93 ITR 26 and ADIT vs Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 in this regard. The penalty is not sustainable

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

reassessment proceedings going on. On the very next day, he visited the office of the 13 Sh. Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO AO and explained him the reasons for non compliance of notices being the sending of all earlier notices on the incorrect addresses, where upon he was informed that assessment in his case has been completed. Still

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 690/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

reassessment proceedings due to significant cash deposits and issued notices under Section 142(1). The assessee did not respond to these notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 142(1) were not properly served on the assessee, as they were sent via email to the counsel, and the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com 573 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 794 (SC) [04-0... INCOME TAX: Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned High Court order that where Assessing Officer made additions under section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

reassessment are under sec. 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purpose of this case. 19. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed under section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that