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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,547Mumbai1,187Chennai434Bangalore415Hyderabad217Kolkata214Jaipur195Ahmedabad167Chandigarh95Karnataka84Raipur69Amritsar58Nagpur52Indore41Guwahati40Agra39Telangana36Cochin36Rajkot34Lucknow32Patna32Allahabad26Cuttack26Calcutta22Surat21Pune20Ranchi14Jodhpur14Dehradun11Jabalpur9SC9Visakhapatnam8Orissa5Rajasthan4Gauhati3Kerala2Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Block Assessment2

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/2/2019HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: MOHAMMED SHERIEFFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

block assessment period 2004-05 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer through Annexure- B order dated 30.12.2008, determined the tax and interest payable by the assessee as Rs.3,62,307/-. The assessee during the pendency ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019 -9- of the appeal raised a ground on the statutory requirement of recording satisfaction for proceeding under Section 153C

MOHAMMED SHERIEF vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/7/2019HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: MOHAMMED SHERIEF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
For Respondent:

block assessment period 2004-05 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer through Annexure- B order dated 30.12.2008, determined the tax and interest payable by the assessee as Rs.3,62,307/-. The assessee during the pendency ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019 -9- of the appeal raised a ground on the statutory requirement of recording satisfaction for proceeding under Section 153C