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.

8 results for “reassessment”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai38Jaipur26Chennai25Cochin21Hyderabad19Bangalore12Ahmedabad10Pune8Kolkata8Dehradun7Rajkot6Delhi5Surat5Raipur4Chandigarh4Visakhapatnam3Agra2Indore2Guwahati2Nagpur2Lucknow2Patna1SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14714Section 271(1)(c)13Section 14811Section 271B11Section 689Section 2508Penalty7Addition to Income6Section 10(38)5Reassessment

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

271B is hereby deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. II. ITA No. 636/Kol/2024 (AY 2012-13) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 636/Kol/2024: “1. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case, penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 144B4

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

271B is hereby deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. II. ITA No. 636/Kol/2024 (AY 2012-13) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 636/Kol/2024: “1. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case, penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reassessment was initiated based on alleged information that the appellant received accommodation entries of ₹91,00,000 from M/s Shree Shyam Trading Company (Prop. Satya Narayan More, PAN: CRHPM0358P). The appellant submitted complete documentation including ledger, sale invoices, confirmations, and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 4. That, without prejudice, the assessment order dated 31st March

TRAVEL HUB PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 12(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1986/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act for not complying with the provision of section 44AB of the Act. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR argued that for the very same year under appeal the assessment was later reopened

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

reassessment proceedings stand vitiated as the AO failed to\nprovide the material and information relied upon in the assessment order at\nthe stage of issuing the Section 148A notice. The non-disclosure of such\nmaterial is a direct violation of the principles of natural justice and deprives\nthe appellant of an effective opportunity to respond.\n6. That the AO erred

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

reassessment proceedings stand vitiated as the AO failed to\nprovide the material and information relied upon in the assessment order at\nthe stage of issuing the Section 148A notice. The non-disclosure of such\nmaterial is a direct violation of the principles of natural justice and deprives\nthe appellant of an effective opportunity to respond.\n6. That the AO erred

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceeding the assessee suo moto filed a revised computation withdrawing the claim made u/s. 10(38) of the Act and finally the assessment culminated u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in which the AO made addition on entire sale consideration of Rs.7,20,139/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the assessee

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, Office staff on behalf of Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed through Covid-19 Pandemic and I.T.A. No. 363/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarika Dugar 4 various restrictions were made and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme