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”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi255Mumbai154Bangalore54Chennai54Raipur43Amritsar35Jaipur26Kolkata18Ahmedabad12Chandigarh12Guwahati7Cochin7Lucknow7Indore6Jodhpur5Hyderabad4Rajkot3Surat3Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 1449Section 1478Section 1485Section 694Section 1273Addition to Income3Section 271(1)(c)2Section 143(2)2Cash Deposit2Penalty

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 341/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

reassessment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making additions aggregating to Rs.21,99,192/- on account of cash deposits treated as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act and a further addition of Rs. 86,440/- on account of alleged share trading income. 4. The assessee could not respond effectively to the statutory notices

2
Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

reassessment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making additions aggregating to Rs.21,99,192/- on account of cash deposits treated as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act and a further addition of Rs. 86,440/- on account of alleged share trading income. 4. The assessee could not respond effectively to the statutory notices

GAURAVA MISHRA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

permanent territorial address and also that the Learned ITO-3(1)(3), Surat himself mentioned the address of the assessee as "605 Sundar Nagar, Sphatik Nagar, Raipur" in the Notice u/s 133(6) dated 01.03.2019 issued to the assessee and the Learned ITO-3(2)(8), Surat has also mentioned the said address in the assessment order passed