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.

4 results for “reassessment”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,397Mumbai2,107Chennai802Hyderabad475Jaipur469Ahmedabad458Bangalore457Raipur393Kolkata376Chandigarh270Pune249Indore173Rajkot170Amritsar167Surat138Cochin128Visakhapatnam113Patna110Nagpur99Cuttack82Guwahati77Agra70Ranchi62Lucknow53SC53Jodhpur51Dehradun50Allahabad38Panaji24Jabalpur5Varanasi4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 14719Section 1488Section 253(3)5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1443Cash Deposit3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 1512Addition to Income2

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 as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material

Penalty2

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 as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material

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

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

Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the 1961 Act , but the onus is on the assessee to produce credible evidences to substantiate cost of acquisition by the previous owners as is stipulated u/s 49(1). Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that one more