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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi589Mumbai537Bangalore191Chennai141Ahmedabad132Jaipur125Chandigarh79Kolkata75Hyderabad56Indore55Raipur47Telangana37Agra31Surat30Guwahati29Pune27Rajkot27Amritsar25Lucknow25Nagpur20Allahabad20Visakhapatnam18Cuttack18Cochin14Jodhpur14Ranchi13SC9Dehradun8Patna5Orissa4Calcutta4Karnataka3Rajasthan2Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 144C6Section 1534Section 1543Section 1253Section 18A3Section 233Section 153(1)2Section 158B2Limitation/Time-bar2

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT CENTRAL vs. SAURASTHRA CEMENT & CHEM. INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-002984-002984 - 2008Supreme Court02 May 2016
Section 125A(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

reassessment or re-computation is : made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act;... Explanation

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S. ATUL AUTOMATIONS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-001057-001057 - 2019Supreme Court24 Jan 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Section 11(8)Section 112Section 114ASection 125

Section 125 of the Customs Act will therefore not detract from the   redemption   of   such   restricted   goods   imported   without authorisation upon payment of the market value.  There will exist a fundamental distinction between what is prohibited and what is 8 restricted.  We therefore find no error with the conclusion of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court that the respondent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

reassessment and re-computation under the Act. The sub-section (1) of the said section provides that the time-limit for passing an assessment order under section 143 or 144 of the Act shall be 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. However, this time limit had earlier been curtailed

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

R.P.(C) No.-000400 - 2021Supreme Court07 Nov 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 6 is the only Section which provides for entrustment of functions of Customs officer on other officers of the Central or the State Government or local authority, it reads as follows:- “6. Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers. - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted   by   amendment   is   either   is   either expressly   or   by   necessary   implication retrospective.   A   provision   which   in   terms   is retrospective   and   has   the   effect   of   opening   up liability   which   had   become   barred   by   lapse   of time,   will   be   subject   to   the   rule   of   strict construction.   In   the   absence   of   a   clear implication such

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant9. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income-tax Officer10, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL

C.A. No.-001878-001880 - 2004Supreme Court03 Oct 2005
For Respondent: M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal etc
Section 3Section 5A

reassess the correct amount of duty payable following the provisions of section 11A of the Act http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15 and the assessee shall pay the deficiency, if any. Rule 173G. Procedure to be followed by the assessee.\027 (1) Every assessee shall keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

C.A. No.-000928-000928 - 1980Supreme Court15 Sept 1995
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI AND ANR. ETC. ETC
Section 143Section 144Section 18Section 18ASection 2Section 207Section 208Section 209Section 211Section 214

125 I.T.R.141). The assessment year concerned was 1968-69. It was a case where the original assessment order was rectified by the Income Tax Officer under Section 154. The Division Bench held that the original assessment order as rectified is the regular assessment order or the correct assessment order, as it may be called. On that basis, it held that

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

reassessment under Chapter Heading 4911. According to him, at any rate, the entire value for the consignment which came under Air Way Bill was of Rs. 63.11 lacs (approx) as per Invoice Nos. 1836-02A and 1836-92B dated December 22, 1993 which could not be taken as value of drawings for the reason that the consideration