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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 2(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,908Mumbai2,803Chennai835Bangalore779Jaipur678Ahmedabad587Kolkata525Hyderabad495Pune316Chandigarh289Surat196Indore195Amritsar185Raipur178Rajkot173Visakhapatnam144Cuttack103Cochin98Patna93Agra92Nagpur84Lucknow82Karnataka78Guwahati63Telangana58Dehradun52Jodhpur49Allahabad47Ranchi41SC27Panaji16Calcutta9Orissa9Rajasthan8Jabalpur7Kerala5Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14814Section 253(3)5Section 1474Section 1444Section 143(2)3Section 249(4)(b)3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 144r2Cash Deposit

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

Section 139 of the Act , on 26th April, 2011 for assessment year’s 2009-10 as well as 2010-11 , the copies of which are placed at page No. 30-31 of the paper-book. It was also submitted that the assessee claimed refund of TDS amount of Rs. 17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years

2
Reassessment2

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

Section 139 of the Act , on 26th April, 2011 for assessment year’s 2009-10 as well as 2010-11 , the copies of which are placed at page No. 30-31 of the paper-book. It was also submitted that the assessee claimed refund of TDS amount of Rs. 17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years

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)

30-09-2009 showing taxable income at Rs. 2,81,800/- computed under the provisions of the Act. The said return was processed vide intimation u/s 143(1) accepting the returned income and determining a refund of Rs. 79,430/- , Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by the Ld. Income Tax Officer (here-in-after referred

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

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

30,500/- chargeable to income-tax, vide assessment order dated 24.11.2019 passed by the AO u/s 144/148 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by assessment framed by the AO as aforesaid vide assessment order dated 24.11.2019, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A), and ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding as under: I.T.A