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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai59Bangalore17Delhi16Chennai14Ahmedabad11Jaipur11Kolkata8Lucknow7Hyderabad7Indore7Pune4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam3Raipur3Cuttack2Ranchi2Chandigarh1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A39Section 14817Section 80G17Section 271(1)(c)15Section 1477Deduction6Section 2745Section 139(4)5Exemption5House Property

ALL INDIA SECURITISATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ASSOCIATION,CHITRANJAN MARG vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT,

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 627/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

5 of CIT Order:\n\nThe CIT Exemption has wrongly cancelled the existing 80G provisional registration dated 06.10.2021\nwhereas assessee has submitted the proper justification for regularization of the provisional\nregistration. So, your honor is requested to kindly direct the CIT Exemption to grant the 80G registration\nas trust is doing genuinely charitable activities.\n\n17\nITA No. 627 & 628/JPR/2024

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

5
Penalty5
Section 13(3)4

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1015/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer\nPricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh\nassessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Add.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings are quashed and set-aside. 19. Now, we refer to the appeal filed by the Revenue wherein the findings of the ld CIT(A) have been challenged. 20. In this regard, the ld DR relied on the findings of the AO and our reference was drawn to Para 3.1 to 3.4 of AO’s order which reads

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

ITA 1021/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

reassessment.\n5.\nThe said section is not applicable in the present as the contentions raised are\nrelating to illegality of the Impugned Order as well as exercising power without authority\nof law and without jurisdiction.\n6.\nIn view of the above, the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly contended that Appellant has\nparticipated in the proceedings therefore, it is precluded from

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5-8) was merely not legally justified.\n2. No prior detection nor any mala fide intention of the assessee:\nIt is vehemently submitted that totality of the facts & circumstances if considered\nfairly and honestly, clearly suggest that it is not at all a case of deliberate attempt\nwith a mala fide intention to suppress the income repeatedly but wrongly alleged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5-8) was merely not legally justified.\n2. No prior detection nor any mala fide intention of the assessee:\nIt is vehemently submitted that totality of the facts & circumstances if considered\nfairly and honestly, clearly suggest that it is not at all a case of deliberate attempt\nwith a mala fide intention to suppress the income repeatedly but wrongly alleged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

5-8) was merely not legally justified.\n2. No prior detection nor any mala fide intention of the assessee:\nIt is vehemently submitted that totality of the facts & circumstances if considered\nfairly and honestly, clearly suggest that it is not at all a case of deliberate attempt\nwith a mala fide intention to suppress the income repeatedly but wrongly alleged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5-8) was merely not legally justified.\n2. No prior detection nor any mala fide intention of the assessee:\nIt is vehemently submitted that totality of the facts & circumstances if considered\nfairly and honestly, clearly suggest that it is not at all a case of deliberate attempt\nwith a mala fide intention to suppress the income repeatedly but wrongly alleged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5-8) was merely not legally justified.\n2. No prior detection nor any mala fide intention of the assessee:\nIt is vehemently submitted that totality of the facts & circumstances if considered\nfairly and honestly, clearly suggest that it is not at all a case of deliberate attempt\nwith a mala fide intention to suppress the income repeatedly but wrongly alleged

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment\norder could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld.\nPr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes\nof law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee's group concern i.e.\nM/s Reliance Corporate IT Park