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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 12(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,368Mumbai2,808Chennai1,029Bangalore1,006Kolkata602Jaipur505Ahmedabad465Hyderabad370Chandigarh231Pune192Raipur164Rajkot152Indore121Amritsar116Surat102Nagpur83Visakhapatnam81Lucknow77Patna76Guwahati66Cochin61Cuttack51Jodhpur45Ranchi41SC37Agra33Dehradun31Allahabad26Karnataka25Telangana19Panaji17Kerala13Orissa11Calcutta11Rajasthan7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Jabalpur2Varanasi2Madhya Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 1484Section 2603Section 143(2)3Section 13A3Section 65(1)2Section 153A2Section 143(3)2Section 148A2Addition to Income2

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

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

reassessment of such property taxes was made, and the amount of tax to be levied and collected was determined under sub-section (1). The proviso thereto required the Corporation to pay simple interest, at the rate of six percent per annum, on the amount of excess liable to be refunded under Sub-section (2), from the date of the decree

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

c) The said articles must not be recorded in the books of accounts, if any maintained; (d) The assessee is unable to offer an explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring the articles in question; or The explanation, which is offered, is found to be, in the opinion of the Officer, not satisfactory; (e) If the aforesaid conditions

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel

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

C) 39/2023 NATIONALIST CONGRESS PARTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor & Ms. Sonia Dodeja, Advs. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE 1 (1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

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

c) If the Dispute is not resolved as evidenced by the signing of the written terms of settlement within 30 (thirty) working days of the aforesaid notice in writing or such longer period as may be mutually agreed by the Parties then the provisions of Clause 34.2 shall apply. 34.2 Arbitration 34.2.1 Any Dispute which is not resolved amicably

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