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 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,063Mumbai1,834Chennai669Bangalore611Jaipur503Ahmedabad378Hyderabad374Kolkata372Chandigarh198Pune172Indore169Amritsar142Raipur139Surat131Visakhapatnam124Rajkot122Patna71Cochin70Karnataka69Cuttack63Guwahati62Telangana52Nagpur52Lucknow50Agra38Allahabad36Ranchi32Jodhpur24SC23Dehradun19Orissa9Calcutta8Rajasthan6Panaji4Jabalpur4Kerala3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1Varanasi1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 1487Section 1474Section 13A3Addition to Income3Section 65(1)2Section 143(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 148A2Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment

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

32 months is not explained. 2. Interest income from two sources viz., from M/s. Mangal Tyres and from short term loans and advances treated differently and shown under two heads in return filed for the assessment year 2016-17 viz., as income from other sources and income from business. 3. List of persons to whom money was given and interest

2

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

reassessment action itself having been validly initiated. 32. Explanation 3, cannot consequently be read as enabling the AO to attempt to either deviate from the reasons originally recorded for initiating action under Section

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

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)

32 THESE STRPs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER This batch of Revision Petitions by the Revenue is being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve common questions of law. 2. The facts are illustratively taken from STRP

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