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.

9 results for “reassessment”+ Reassessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,623Mumbai3,359Chennai1,202Ahmedabad858Kolkata779Jaipur656Bangalore601Hyderabad601Pune471Raipur457Chandigarh405Indore294Rajkot260Surat237Amritsar212Cochin198Patna177Visakhapatnam171Cuttack150Agra147Nagpur146Guwahati109Ranchi107Lucknow91Dehradun89Jodhpur83Allahabad48Panaji34Jabalpur16Varanasi9

Key Topics

Section 14730Section 14816Section 270A8Addition to Income6Section 253(3)5Cash Deposit5Reassessment5Section 143(2)4Section 1444Section 263

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. CIT (E),, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/ALLD/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi17 Jan 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Varanasi Development Authority, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pannalal Park, Raja Udai Pratap (Exemption), Lucknow Marg, Katchary, Varanasi Pan-Aaatv6811A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 43B

reassessment proceedings were initiated. The AO has passed the reassessment order on the same set of documents/reasons /facts

4
Section 271(1)(c)4
Penalty4

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

For Appellant: Shri V. K. JindalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

reassessed is greater than the income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (d) the amount of deemed

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

ITA 124/VNS/2020[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

reassessment order dated 19.11.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is null and void because it suffers from jurisdictional

SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

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

ITA 51/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi12 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

reassessment were not provided to the appellant before completion of assessment and only on the basis of AIR information

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and action of authorities was totally arbitrary

GUNJAN RUNGTA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle - II, Gorakhpur as also conclusion thereof by the ITO vide

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and action of authorities was totally arbitrary

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

ITA 42/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 48

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee by Revenue u/s 147/148 of the Act. It is emerging from the records

RAGHAWENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 02,, VARANASI

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

ITA 96/VNS/2020[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi11 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Late Raghawendra Pratap Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income L/H Geepta Singh (Wife), Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi C-53-54, Shivlok Tower, Lanka Varanasi-221005 Pan-Ahbps8614A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 3. BECAUSE the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts