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 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi271Mumbai221Bangalore73Kolkata42Jaipur40Chennai34Ahmedabad26Chandigarh22Pune21Surat19Lucknow17Cochin15Hyderabad14Cuttack14Nagpur7Raipur6Visakhapatnam5Ranchi4Indore4Patna3Karnataka3Jodhpur3Rajkot2SC2Amritsar2Rajasthan1Panaji1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 2748Section 1476Section 10(38)4Section 143(2)4Section 2713Long Term Capital Gains3Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 234A

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

reassessment order passed thereafter are liable to be quashed. 13.1. While holding so, we draw force from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad (supra) which has held in favour of the assessee. The decision by the Hon’ble Court is extracted below: “1. The appeal is filed against

2
Section 143(3)2
Penny Stock2

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

reassessment order passed thereafter are liable to be quashed. 13.1. While holding so, we draw force from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad (supra) which has held in favour of the assessee. The decision by the Hon’ble Court is extracted below: “1. The appeal is filed against

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

reassessed u/s 153A of income tax act. (ii) For that the Ld. CIT (A), Ranchi erred in treating the activity of self construction of building on owned land and selling subsequently as adventure in the nature of trade and ignored our ground of appeal. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in treating income as business income instead of long term capital

SRI MAKHAN LAL AGRWAL,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CIR-3, JSTR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 142/RAN/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT/ld.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

239/-, u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerge from the relevant penalty notice dated 20-03- 2015 that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of Page1 concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench Kolkata