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”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,473Delhi2,340Chennai974Bangalore875Ahmedabad444Kolkata436Jaipur380Hyderabad357Indore220Chandigarh199Surat182Visakhapatnam162Pune152Rajkot145Raipur119Amritsar93Cuttack91Cochin89Nagpur82Lucknow77Patna73Karnataka73Agra71Guwahati65Telangana44Ranchi44Dehradun39Jodhpur36Allahabad29SC27Orissa6Panaji4Rajasthan4Calcutta3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Jabalpur2Gauhati2Kerala2Varanasi2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

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

E. Shemsudhin, that the undisclosed income revealed in the search belonged to the assessee appellant and the procedure prescribed under section 153C having not followed, the assessment made under section 153C is invalid. 2. There was also no finding by the assessing officer that any of the documents seized during the course of search belonged to your appellant. Therefore

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:

E. Shemsudhin, that the undisclosed income revealed in the search belonged to the assessee appellant and the procedure prescribed under section 153C having not followed, the assessment made under section 153C is invalid. 2. There was also no finding by the assessing officer that any of the documents seized during the course of search belonged to your appellant. Therefore