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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8Raipur8Jaipur5Pune5Lucknow4Delhi4Kolkata3Ahmedabad3Indore2Bangalore2Chennai2Agra1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 16310Section 1475Addition to Income5Section 69A3Section 1442Section 1602Unexplained Investment2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. VIJAY GRANIMARMO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAYA GHAR GULAB BARI AJMER

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

55A, section 142A also empowers the Tax Authorities to make a reference to a Valuation Officer. The provisions of section 142A empowers the Assessing Officer for the purposes of assessment or reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. VIJAY GRANIMARMO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAYA GHAR GULAB BARI AJMER

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024
AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

55A of the Income tax Act is\nas under :-\nUnder section 142A, the Assessing Officer for the purposes of\nassessment or reassessment

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 475/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

reassessment.] 21. It was submitted that section 292BB is an exclusive definition and specifically provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served in a situation that assessee has cooperated/ attended / participated in assessment/ re assessment proceedings and no objection regarding non receipt of notice was filed during assessment stage. In other words, section 292BB cures only procedural infirmities

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 558/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

reassessment.] 21. It was submitted that section 292BB is an exclusive definition and specifically provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served in a situation that assessee has cooperated/ attended / participated in assessment/ re assessment proceedings and no objection regarding non receipt of notice was filed during assessment stage. In other words, section 292BB cures only procedural infirmities

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 988/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80C

55A. 6. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/-u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case