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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai574Delhi493Ahmedabad187Chennai148Jaipur145Kolkata114Bangalore108Pune96Raipur73Rajkot72Indore67Chandigarh66Hyderabad62Surat42Nagpur42Cuttack37Cochin33Allahabad26Patna25Lucknow25Guwahati24Amritsar23Ranchi19Agra18Visakhapatnam15Dehradun13Panaji10Jodhpur9Jabalpur4Varanasi3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)18Section 270A8Section 1478Addition to Income8Section 1486Limitation/Time-bar5Penalty4Reassessment4Natural Justice4Reopening of Assessment

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed
4
Section 80G3
Section 153A3
ITAT Jodhpur
20 Sept 2023
AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment or recomputation and an order imposing a penalty under section 271 and other provisions. In its turn, section 253 provides

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

reassessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal has been filed The application has to be made in form No. 68 within 30 days from the end of the month in which the order has been

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

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

ITA 89/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-1, Barmer. 2 The Jaisalmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the ld. CIT(A) NFAC factually and legally erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1690138/- under S. 271(1)(c) imposed

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/JODH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2008-09
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 154(8)

section 148/147 were initiated by the Assessing Officer, on non-existing facts, because ultimately the assessee has been able to explain the income, which was believed to have been escaped assessment, was explainable. It is further held that the income, with respect to which he had entertained reason to believe to have escaped assessment, was found to have been explained

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The\ncase is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete\nassessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void.\nOn the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of\nManjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of\npenalty u/s 271

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 722/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 723/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 724/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that