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 4Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore6Mumbai3Kolkata2Indore1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1478Section 1483Section 143(1)3Section 682Section 139(1)2Addition to Income2

BUDHIYA AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1231/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata-700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AABCB 3261 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/10/2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining

SRI MOTILAL JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-35(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1986/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

section 80HH and 80I. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that it was not permissible. Explaining the legal position in this regard, Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that if even though Assessing Officer had a jurisdiction to reassess the issues other than the issues in respect of the proceedings were initiated, he was not justified