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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 281clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi395Mumbai304Bangalore143Jaipur128Chennai55Kolkata49Chandigarh38Hyderabad27Guwahati25Allahabad20Pune19Agra18Indore17Surat17Nagpur15Jodhpur15Ahmedabad13Visakhapatnam12Raipur12Rajkot11Patna11Lucknow8Cuttack6Amritsar6Karnataka4Telangana3Cochin3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Calcutta1Dehradun1SC1

Key Topics

Section 2816Section 124Addition to Income4Section 1322Section 1532

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to any finding, direction or order made under sections 20, 21, 22, (22A), 23 or 24 or any judgment or order made by the Supreme Court, the High Court, or any other court.” 3. The wording in section 12-A(2) “in consequence

SREE RAGHAVENDRA ENTERPRISES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/102272/2021HC Karnataka
12 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar

Section 132Section 153Section 281

281-B of the said Act of 1961 and consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6 7. In Radha Krishan’s case (supra), while dealing with the provisions contained in Section

M/S. INDIAN MINERALS AND GRANITE CO., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/102273/2021HC Karnataka12 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar

Section 132Section 153Section 281

281-B of the said Act of 1961 and consequently, the impugned order 6 does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. In Radha Krishan’s case (supra), while dealing with the provisions contained in Section

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/16692/2022HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 281BSection 281ESection 92C

reassessment, it is necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the claim