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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 35(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,178Mumbai1,836Chennai651Bangalore633Jaipur516Ahmedabad426Hyderabad350Kolkata335Raipur321Chandigarh253Pune197Indore184Surat163Rajkot126Visakhapatnam124Amritsar124Cochin100Patna76Karnataka73Cuttack70Guwahati58Nagpur54Lucknow50Telangana47Agra38Ranchi36Dehradun31SC26Jodhpur23Allahabad22Orissa9Panaji8Calcutta6Jabalpur5Rajasthan5Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Varanasi3Uttarakhand1Madhya Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1474Section 1483Addition to Income3Section 65(1)2Section 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)

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

35 additional or excess grants. No such procedure has been followed in the present case, evidently because the provisions of Article 205 are inapplicable for an ex- post facto legislative sanction of the expenditure, illegally incurred by the State Government earlier, in providing various amenities to the former Chief Ministers. 58. Article 206, which relates to vote on account, votes

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

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

ITA/87/2017HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 173(1)

35,391/- per annum after deducting Rs.15,607/- towards income tax and Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax respectively. To the aforesaid amount, 40% is to be added towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.7,49,547/- per annum. The wife and mother of the deceased are considered to be dependant on the income of the deceased. The mere fact

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

1. These two appeals had been admitted in terms of our order This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 00:35:07 ITA 1482/2018 & ITA 19/2024 Page