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 u/s 147”+ Section 234B(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai440Delhi434Bangalore218Ahmedabad102Jaipur63Hyderabad55Chennai53Kolkata41Pune26Rajkot20Lucknow19Surat16Nagpur15Indore15Agra13Dehradun12Chandigarh12Amritsar12Patna11Visakhapatnam7Cuttack6Cochin6Allahabad5Ranchi4Karnataka4Jodhpur3Telangana2Panaji1Raipur1Guwahati1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14817Section 14714Section 143(2)5Section 1515Section 10(38)4Addition to Income4Section 234A3Long Term Capital Gains3Section 144B

KONDA KARABI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

ITA 4/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

4. For that the order u/s 147 rws 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 as passed by department on 25.03.2023 is bad in law. The order as passed is void ab-initio, bad in law and fit to set aside. 5. For that the sanctioning authority has not applied his judicial mind before according sanction u/s 151. The approval

2
Penny Stock2
Exemption2
Penalty2

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

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

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

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

ROSHAN MAHESHWARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(5), CHAIBASA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 117/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234A

u/s. 234A and 234B, on the tax payable on the returned income, instead of tax payable on the returned income is unjustified. 9. For that, order grounds if any, would be urged at the time of hearing.’ 3. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. argued the legal issue that the assessment years involved in this case