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.

14 results for “reassessment”+ Section 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi108Mumbai106Bangalore101Jaipur38Chennai27Pune26Chandigarh21Raipur14Kolkata13Nagpur12Surat9Ahmedabad9Indore7Rajkot6Jodhpur6Patna5Hyderabad4Dehradun4Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Cochin2Cuttack2Guwahati2Lucknow2Agra2Jabalpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)31Section 282A(1)24Section 15121Section 14817Section 143(3)9Addition to Income8Section 133(6)6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 1475

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

Section 2825
Reassessment5
TDS5

NANDA SINGH, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nanda Singh Behind Civil Court, Ward No.8, Surajpur-492 229 (C.G.) Pan: Dbmps5756K

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)Section 292B

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

RAVI RAIKA, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.763/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282ASection 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

LAXMI HANUMANTA,, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Laxmi Hanumanta Iris 76, Chohan Green Vally, Junwani Road, Bhilai-490 020 (C.G.) Pan: Abyph5918B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 282Section 282ASection 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.474/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

DAYA THOURANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms

ITA 1/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Daya Thourani Thourani Niwas, Near Mla Rest House, Tagore Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Ablpt6191R

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

G.T. REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms

ITA 95/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 G.T Reality Private Limited 23, G.T. Shopping Plaza, Avanti Bai Chowk, Kapa, Raipur (C.G.)-492 007 Pan: Aadcg9139N

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

FIROJ ALAM, BHILAI,DURG vs. ITO-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Firoj Alam H. No.0, Hathkhoj, Indira Nagar, Bhilai-490 026 Pan: Bgmpa0920J

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess

SMT. SHOBHA DUBEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Shobha Dubey House No.143, Anand Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Acopa8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282ASection 282A(1)

section 292B of the Act. 12 Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

292B". The fact is that notice u/s 148 of the Act was generated on 30.03.2018 and simultaneously sent to the assessee. The proof of date of dispatch of the notice is the date of generation of notice itself which is 30.03.218 at 7:15 P.M. There is no dispute. Alternatively, the system generated notice 148 of the Act dated