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.

12 results for “reassessment”+ Section 1clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,474Mumbai6,019Chennai1,871Kolkata1,529Bangalore1,493Ahmedabad1,222Jaipur1,103Hyderabad825Pune773Chandigarh517Raipur511Surat439Indore413Visakhapatnam344Amritsar335Rajkot321Cochin300Cuttack272Karnataka222Agra184Patna181Nagpur179Guwahati149Lucknow140Ranchi125Dehradun116Telangana103Jodhpur85Allahabad65Calcutta51SC48Panaji43Jabalpur34Kerala17Orissa15Varanasi15Rajasthan12Punjab & Haryana7Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2J&K1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 1476Addition to Income6Reassessment5Section 2604Section 66(1)4Section 1534Section 143(2)3Section 13A3Section 143(3)

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED

ITA/26/2022HC Rajasthan15 Jan 2025

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Section 39(1)Section 62(1)Section 65(1)Section 69(1)

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENRAL vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA

In the result, the impugned orders of the

ITA/4/2020HC Rajasthan
3
Reopening of Assessment2
Limitation/Time-bar2
30 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)

SECTION 66(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN NO.ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-03/2019-20 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-II, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT AP NO.59/15-16 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) 1 BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

ITA/8/2024HC Rajasthan13 Aug 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

For Appellant: Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 69Section 69A

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, which as per the provisions of Section 149 of the IT Act, provided for an outer time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. till 31-3-2023, particularly when the assertion of the source of cash deposit tracing it to closing balance

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

section (1) applied till assessment or reassessment of such property taxes was made, and the amount of tax to be levied

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

ITA/68/2024HC Rajasthan08 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 153Section 153(7)Section 4

Section 153(1) prescribes the limitation period for passing an order of assessment. The maximum time limit, as applicable during the relevant period, was two years from the end of the assessment year. Similarly, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 in cases where assessment, reassessment

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SURENDRA MEENA

ITA/39/2023HC Rajasthan27 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 133(6)Section 139(9)Section 13ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148A

1. The petitioner [Assessee] has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30.08.2022 [the impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the assessment year [AY] 2015-16. The Assessee is, essentially, aggrieved by the initiation of the reassessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED

ITA/294/2018HC Rajasthan22 Apr 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 40

1. Aggrieved of order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur this appeal is filed under Section 260(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the “Act”). 2. Brief facts are that the respondent-Company for assessment year (for short “AY”) filed the returns and the assessment was framed under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR vs. GAJ SINGH

ITA/87/2017HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 173(1)

Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

ITA/19/2024HC Rajasthan14 Aug 2025

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Section 148 notice. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] ultimately bore in consideration the decision of the Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2612] to hold that the reassessment shall stand confined to items which had been mentioned or taken note of by the AO while forming the opinion that income

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/51/2017HC Rajasthan15 Mar 2021

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: (PETITIONER IN OP(ARB) 405/2012 OF DISTRICT JUDGE
Section 2(26)Section 233Section 34

1) Every Council of the Municipality shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules as may be prescribed, levy property tax on every building (including the land appurtenant thereto) situated within the area of the respective Municipality and not exempted as per the provisions of the Act. (2) (a) For the purpose of levying property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

ITA/359/2018HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 260

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU–560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU–560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 4 AND: M/S. GMR ENERGY LIMITED, 25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU–560 025. PAN:AAACT8420A. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAM