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.

8 results for “reassessment”+ Section 11(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,214Mumbai4,506Chennai1,481Bangalore1,305Kolkata1,014Jaipur909Ahmedabad843Hyderabad741Pune610Raipur478Chandigarh427Surat353Indore328Visakhapatnam288Amritsar278Rajkot255Cochin241Cuttack216Karnataka162Nagpur143Agra134Patna123Guwahati121Lucknow108Dehradun90Ranchi90Telangana80Jodhpur62Allahabad50SC43Panaji32Calcutta19Orissa14Jabalpur13Kerala11Rajasthan10Varanasi8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1Uttarakhand1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 14818Section 1479Section 270A8Section 1447Section 143(2)7Section 253(3)5Addition to Income5Section 2634Section 249(4)(b)3Reassessment

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

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

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

reassessment was framed by the AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The assessee never filed any return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148, and hence the AO rightly invoked provisions of Section 144 and framed best judgment assessment. The AO duly issued notices u/s 142(1) as well SCN u/s 144 , dated

3
Cash Deposit2
Limitation/Time-bar2

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

reassessment was framed by the AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The assessee never filed any return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148, and hence the AO rightly invoked provisions of Section 144 and framed best judgment assessment. The AO duly issued notices u/s 142(1) as well SCN u/s 144 , dated

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)

5) The amount referred to in sub-section (4) shall be deemed to be amount of income under-reported for the preceding year in the following order— :-7-: (a) the preceding year immediately before the year in which the receipt, deposit or investment appears, being the first preceding year; and (b) where the amount added or deducted in the first

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

11 of the Income Tax Act. Initially, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 20.11.2009 at Nil income. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 07.02.2014 to assess the income which has not been applied by the assessee for charitable purpose as well as the income from stamp

SANJAI KUMAR GUPTA,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 59/VNS/2019[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Apr 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2010-11 Shrisanjai Kumar Gupta The Income Tax Officer Ismailpur, Gorakhpur- V. Ward 2(2), Gorakhpur-273001, 273005, U.P. U.P. Pan: Aiwpg7908H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chand and Shri Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Section 69 of the 1961 Act , and made additions to the tune of Rs. 51 lacs in the hands of the assessee, vide reassessment order dated 21.12.2017 passed by AO u/s 144/147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee filed first appeal, wherein the assessee explained that it purchased property consisting of plot of land for Rs. 21 lacs, and further

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 order framed on the basis of such notice is unlawful and is liable to the quashed. 4. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified that on the account of non admitting the appeal, did not decided any ground of merit which is unlawful and therefore the CIT(A) order is liable to be setaside. 5

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

5. Being aggrieved by appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal. The assessee did not appear before I.T.A. No.42/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 11 RadheyShyam,Agra, U.P. v. ITO,Ward 2(3), Varanasi,U.P. Tribunalwhen this appeal was called for hearing before DB on 06.02.2023. Learned Sr. D.R. opened arguments before

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 was done by ITO, Rewa, MP u/s 147/148. 6c.The Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no transfer order was passed u/s 127(2) by ld. CIT, and hence the transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Rewa(M.P.) to ITO, Mirzapur(U.P.) was not valid and proper. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon section 282 submitted that