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 45(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,769Mumbai1,469Bangalore581Chennai533Jaipur400Ahmedabad335Kolkata274Hyderabad255Chandigarh192Pune150Indore128Rajkot111Amritsar110Surat107Raipur100Cuttack76Visakhapatnam76Patna58Karnataka55Cochin53Telangana51Nagpur46Lucknow45Guwahati41Allahabad40Jodhpur35SC19Agra16Dehradun15Orissa9Ranchi6Calcutta4Rajasthan4Jabalpur3Panaji3Kerala3Varanasi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 65(1)2Addition to Income2

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)

45 jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act because in the case on hand as far as Nokia was concerned, the phone charger was sold as a separate accessory and, therefore, Apex Court held that it is not part of mobile phone. The battery was supplied with mobile phone and, therefore, battery charger was earlier classified as cell phone

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

4(c) of Act 5 of 2020, (which extends to the former Chief Ministers the benefit of various facilities free of cost), is illegal and ultravires Articles 202 to 207 and Article 266(3) of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be declared void and unenforceable on this score. V. DOES THE IMPUGNED ENACTMENT SEEK TO NULLIFY

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

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

45,301/- was diligently declared. 17. The Assessing Officer has miserably failed to appreciate that the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the IT Act, at the relevant time, provided an outer time-limit till 31-3-2017 to the assessee to file return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. Further, the said return