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 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai720Delhi704Ahmedabad294Jaipur279Chennai272Bangalore186Hyderabad186Pune151Kolkata141Raipur139Rajkot122Chandigarh107Indore94Surat87Visakhapatnam86Patna81Amritsar69Agra55Nagpur49Lucknow42Cuttack41Jodhpur36Guwahati34Allahabad28Cochin26Dehradun24Panaji19Ranchi11Jabalpur7Varanasi4

Key Topics

Section 14719Section 1489Section 1444Section 253(3)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 249(4)(b)3Cash Deposit3Section 2502Section 1512Addition to Income

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)

144 of the Act, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.14,92,400/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Apart from this, the AO also added a sum of Rs.6,120/- to the total income

2
Penalty2
Limitation/Time-bar2

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)

144 of the Act, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.14,92,400/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Apart from this, the AO also added a sum of Rs.6,120/- to the total income

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

144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act(ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1022201265(1)). I.T.A. No.51/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 2 Shri Prakash Yadav v. ITO, Ward 2(4), Ballia, U.P. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi Circuit Bench, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) reads as under: “1. Because

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

144 read with Section 148 of the Act. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Memo of Appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Varanasi, U.P.: “1. That the A.O. has failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatory requirement as such assessment is illegal and ab initio void. 2. That