BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 249clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi143Mumbai125Ahmedabad64Jaipur59Kolkata59Bangalore43Chennai39Nagpur35Pune27Chandigarh26Indore25Raipur25Amritsar25Patna20Surat15Ranchi14Panaji12Hyderabad9Lucknow7Jabalpur7Jodhpur6Dehradun5Guwahati5SC3Rajkot3Cuttack2Cochin2Visakhapatnam2Varanasi1

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153-A.” 4.1 It is submitted by Shri Nataraj, learned ASG that the amendment in Section 153C was necessitated in view of the observation of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SARDAR LAKHMIR SINGH

The appeals are dismissed with costs, one hearing fee

- 0Supreme Court12 Dec 1962
For Respondent: SARDAR LAKHMIR SINGH
Section 31

reassessment were commenced under the said sub-sections after the 8th day of September 1948." It was argued that the assessments are for the year ending before April 1, 1948 and the assessments were commenced under sub-ss. 1, 2 and 3 of s. 34 after September 8, 1948 and therefore sub-ss. 1, 2 and 3 must be deemed