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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,473Delhi2,340Chennai974Bangalore875Ahmedabad445Kolkata436Jaipur380Hyderabad357Indore220Chandigarh218Surat182Visakhapatnam162Pune152Rajkot145Raipur120Cuttack96Amritsar93Cochin89Nagpur83Lucknow77Patna73Karnataka73Agra71Guwahati65Telangana44Ranchi44Dehradun39Jodhpur36Allahabad29SC27Orissa6Panaji4Rajasthan4Calcutta3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Jabalpur2Gauhati2Kerala2Varanasi2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 1484Section 13A3Section 143(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 148A2Addition to Income2

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

e) If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed as the income of the financial year in which the assessee is found to be the owner; (f) In the case of money, the money can be deemed to be the income of the financial year;” 15. Having noticed

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

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 for AY 2015-16, which

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

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