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 254(1)clear

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

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

1) of I.T. Act 1961. No valid notice u/s 148 could be issued in the case of assessee pursuance to information received and found in the course of search. Notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law. Reliance on: i) (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Raj.) Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT (P- 250 – 256) (254

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

1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee

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

1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee

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

1, the following grounds may kindly be allowed to be added: 4 Sarda Energy Ltd. ITA no.534/Nag./2024 (i) That the re-opening notice dated 30.06.2022 issued u/s. 148 under the amended provisions of law is barred by limitation, unsustainable, invalid, void ab initio and untenable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union