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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 2(22)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,412Delhi2,320Chennai931Bangalore853Jaipur578Ahmedabad495Hyderabad412Kolkata411Indore211Chandigarh206Surat195Pune193Visakhapatnam162Rajkot135Raipur131Cuttack96Amritsar95Cochin91Agra84Karnataka77Nagpur76Patna73Lucknow73Guwahati57Telangana48Ranchi44Dehradun35Jodhpur34Allahabad29SC27Panaji16Orissa7Calcutta6Rajasthan6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh2Kerala2Varanasi2Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 1484Section 13A3Addition to Income3Section 65(1)2Section 143(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 148A2Section 173(1)2

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)

D' IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK M/1, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 15 BHAVANINAGAR, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BENGALURU-560 029. REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2021 PASSED IN STA NOS. 20 TO 22/2019

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

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 are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed

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

D E R % 28.04.2025 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 proceedings

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

22 and the State Legislatures. (Kesavananda Bharati[7]). While the State Legislature is required to bear in mind Article 39(b) while making laws, it is not open to the Court to strike down a law, made by a competent legislature, on the premise that it violates the directive principles of State policy, as Article 37 explicitly declares that

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

ITA/87/2017HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 173(1)

D), M.F.A. CROB NO.88 OF 2017 IN M.F.A.NO.8398 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. NO.8398 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKSRTC HAVERI DIVISION, BYADGI UNIT-581110 OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-42/F-1485. 2. THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL SECURITY FUND KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, CHITRADURGA DEPOT KSRTC, NEAR

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari