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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 72clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,307Mumbai1,199Chennai346Bangalore346Jaipur312Ahmedabad268Hyderabad193Kolkata178Chandigarh140Indore98Raipur93Pune92Surat87Cochin77Visakhapatnam77Rajkot75Amritsar68Lucknow44Telangana43Guwahati41Nagpur40Karnataka37Dehradun27Cuttack27Allahabad16Jodhpur15SC12Ranchi11Agra8Patna7Orissa6Varanasi6Calcutta5Rajasthan4Kerala3Panaji2Punjab & Haryana1Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 1448Section 1477Section 2505Addition to Income5Section 143(2)4Section 69A3Section 133(6)3Limitation/Time-bar3Condonation of Delay

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68
3
Section 12A2
Natural Justice2

Section 148 of the Act. The security guard was not an agent of the Assessee and therefore, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law. In Dina Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1994] 72

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/PAT/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ld. DR. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment." 6. By this second innings of section 147 and subsequent Assessment Order, the order of CIT(A)-II, Patna dated 16.01.2009 has been reduced to a nullity and the same time

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

Section 34, conferred jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this court in Jani v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 as also in CIT v. Robert

RAJ KUMAR SINGH ,PATNA vs. ITO,WARD-6(4),PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

72,460/- vide order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and capital gains was assessed. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution as the assessee failed to comply with 7 notices issued for hearing nor the assessee attempted to file

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 69A

reassessment invalid. (7) Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mullajeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) held that improper service of notice invalidates the entire proceedings. In Dr. K.C. Verma v. UOI (2017) 395 ITR 301 (All.), the Allahabad High Court reiterated that service of notice of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is mandatory, and without valid

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

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

72, 00, 02,200/- received from various Kolkata based companies. After due analysis, it was found that the source of securities premium was from bogus shell entities and the companies where investments were made were also bogus non-existent companies. M/s New KMS has offloaded the investments held with it to various companies in the form of unsecured loan

PATNA SMART CITY LIMITED,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PTN-W-(21)(91), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 314/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 250

section 144B of the Act after making the following additions: - Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in ₹) 1. Low net profit construction contractors large claim of refund 13,54,095 2. High liabilities as compared to low income of/receipts 2,93,821 3. Forfeiture of bank guarantee 42,28,00,000 3.1 It is further stated in the Statement of Facts filed that