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.

551 results for “reassessment”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,497Mumbai2,370Chennai675Bangalore614Jaipur551Ahmedabad487Kolkata434Hyderabad365Chandigarh277Pune256Indore173Raipur167Surat150Amritsar140Rajkot138Cochin125Visakhapatnam118Nagpur82Patna76Cuttack71Guwahati71Lucknow68Agra64Telangana59Karnataka59Allahabad41Dehradun39Jodhpur35SC19Panaji11Calcutta9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Orissa7Rajasthan6Kerala5Varanasi3Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14899Section 153A90Section 14785Addition to Income78Section 143(3)58Section 271A38Reassessment34Section 6832Section 13225Section 263

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

reassess the income on account of transaction of purchase of land. However, the said land was purchased by M/s Shri Kalyan Builmart Pvt. Ltd. on 24/08/2006. Thereafter the assessee alongwith Shri Navratan Kothari and Shri Vimal Chand Surana (Individual) purchased the shares ITA 437/JP/2017_ 22 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) of M/s Shri Kalyan Builmart Pvt. Ltd. from Shri

Showing 1–20 of 551 · Page 1 of 28

...
25
Search & Seizure24
Reopening of Assessment21

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 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 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 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 KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

ITA 1057/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 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 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 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.” On perusal of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, in order to determine the validity of notice issued

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1284/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 596/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

ITA 790/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

ITA 789/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 597/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 594/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared by the assessee

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 593/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared by the assessee

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1120/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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. 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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