BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 254clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai414Delhi241Chennai82Bangalore63Raipur61Ahmedabad60Chandigarh58Jaipur55Surat45Hyderabad40Kolkata35Pune31Amritsar24Indore21Rajkot16Cochin14Lucknow12Jodhpur10Guwahati8Nagpur6Agra4Panaji3Cuttack3Patna2Dehradun1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14819Section 69A8Section 2637Section 143(3)6Section 234A6Addition to Income5Section 684Natural Justice4Section 142(1)3Section 250

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “ld. PCIT") – 2, Nagpur dated 30/03/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

3
Reassessment2
Limitation/Time-bar2

SARDA ENERGY LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 56

reassessment order passed is highly illegal, without jurisdiction, bad in low, unsustainable and void ab intio and liable to be set aside and quashed. In view of the above, since the additional grounds of appeal raised thus, goes to the root of the matter having a vital bearing on the tax liability of the appellant, it is prayed that

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

Reassessment has been framed by Assessing Officer accepting the income as shown in the return of income at ` 3,65,640, Bank deposit to the tune of ` 12.12 crore in the same bank account is held to be of parties from whom assessee was in receipt of commission. Similar deposits are in the bank account of appellant for the year

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

Reassessment has been framed by Assessing Officer accepting the income as shown in the return of income at ` 3,65,640, Bank deposit to the tune of ` 12.12 crore in the same bank account is held to be of parties from whom assessee was in receipt of commission. Similar deposits are in the bank account of appellant for the year

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

254 ITR 170 has held that for the purpose of penalty, matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, through not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. They could be taken note of. According to the High Court what

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

section 147 Explanation 2(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Apart from the information in respect of companies mentioned in above table, the case records show that the assessee has claimed investment in shares M/s Alpha Graphic India Ld. and ACIL Cotton Industries Ld. from which investment in shares of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.30 lacs respectively which also needs