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.

11 results for “reassessment”+ Section 12(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,635Mumbai3,937Chennai1,334Bangalore1,219Kolkata807Ahmedabad646Hyderabad614Jaipur570Raipur413Pune326Chandigarh310Rajkot208Indore188Surat170Amritsar165Visakhapatnam128Cochin128Patna122Nagpur115Lucknow90Agra88Guwahati84Cuttack81Ranchi62Jodhpur61Dehradun51SC42Karnataka40Allahabad36Panaji27Telangana20Calcutta17Orissa13Kerala13Rajasthan11Jabalpur5Varanasi5Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Punjab & Haryana3Himachal Pradesh2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 1487Addition to Income5Section 1474Section 66(1)4Section 1534Reassessment4Section 2603Section 143(2)3Section 13A3Section 65(1)

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

12 (3) The Council of the respective Municipality shall, subject to the limit fixed by the Government in accordance with the category of buildings referred to in sub-section (2), fix after complying with the procedure prescribed, the rates of basic property tax (in whole number) to be made applicable to each category of buildings situated in the area

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

ITA/26/2022
2
Reopening of Assessment2
Limitation/Time-bar2
HC Rajasthan
15 Jan 2025

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

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

2) TMI 1247 9 (2017) 77 Taxman.com 219 (All) STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 36 similar to the facts in Nokia India Case. In the Samsung India Case, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has interpreted the provisions contained in Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India which mainly relates to the transfer of goods

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

2. This writ appeal, filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in W.P. No.13953/2020 (T-IT). 3. The facts, in brief, are that, the respondent–assessee, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007–08. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section

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

12 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) assessment year 2017-18 as opening balance and pursuant to demonetization announced by the Government, the same was deposited in SBN on 1-12-2016. 16. It is the case of the assessee that the short term loans and advances were returned back to her in the assessment year 2016-17 itself and formed

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

2 of 5 dated 12 February 2024 on the following question of law:- “A. Whether Ld. ITAT has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating Explanation 3 of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the same would empower the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, which were commenced by issuance of the notice dated 28.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The Assessee is a national political party and is registered with the Election Commission of India [ECI] by a certificate dated 10.01.2000. The Assessee filed its return of income on 29.02.2016, declaring a Nil income, after claiming

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

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

2) and 142 were issued and served on the assessee. 6 3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was partly allowed. Questioning the same, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the appeals on technical aspects as to whether the invocation of the provisions of Section 153A

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 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

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

In the result, the impugned orders of the

ITA/4/2020HC Rajasthan30 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)

SECTION 66(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2003 AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-27/2019-20 BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU, ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT.AP.NO.65/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)- 1, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER

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

ITA/87/2017HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 173(1)

2. Facts leading to the filing of these appeals as well as cross objections briefly stated are that on 06.04.2014, the injured claimant GJ Latha and the deceased Jai Kishan sustained injuries in the accident which occurred near the JMIT Circle, Chitradurga when they were traveling in a car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MB-5197, due to the negligence