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.

7 results for “reassessment”+ Section 6(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,117Mumbai3,715Chennai1,288Bangalore1,154Kolkata959Ahmedabad653Jaipur631Hyderabad415Chandigarh291Pune276Surat202Rajkot197Raipur192Amritsar188Indore184Karnataka125Cuttack122Cochin118Visakhapatnam110Nagpur100Lucknow99Patna90Guwahati83Telangana71Dehradun65Jodhpur56Ranchi54Agra49SC40Allahabad38Panaji21Calcutta18Jabalpur17Kerala16Orissa13Varanasi10Rajasthan7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Punjab & Haryana2Madhya Pradesh1J&K1Gauhati1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 1484Section 2603Section 143(2)3Section 13A3Section 65(1)2Section 153A2Section 143(3)2Section 148A2Addition 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)

reassess or issue said notice. Decision of Nokia will not apply to facts of this case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. As noticed hereinabove, in Entry No. 60(6)(g) of the Punjab VAT Act, the expression used is ‘cellular telephone’ whereas in the Notification issued under KVAT Act, the words used are ‘and parts thereof’. Further, the parts falling under Heading

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

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 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

6 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) absence of any documentary evidences to buttress the said claim, the contention of the appellant cannot be summarily accepted. 2. Availability of the said fund with the assessee in the assessment year 2016-17 parked as short term interest bearing loans had not been proved, though the ITAT as also held that availability

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

C) 39/2023 NATIONALIST CONGRESS PARTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor & Ms. Sonia Dodeja, Advs. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE 1 (1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/51/2017HC Rajasthan15 Mar 2021

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: (PETITIONER IN OP(ARB) 405/2012 OF DISTRICT JUDGE
Section 2(26)Section 233Section 34

6) KLT 1135 (SC). Thus, award is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the builder submitted that the award of the Arbitrator is based upon not only the interpretation but examination of the definitions, terms and conditions and clauses of schedules annexed thereto. Municipality did not take any objection

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

ITA/359/2018HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 260

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU–560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU–560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 4 AND: M/S. GMR ENERGY LIMITED, 25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU–560 025. PAN:AAACT8420A. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAM