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.

28 results for “charitable trust”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai270Mumbai252Delhi198Karnataka167Bangalore82Hyderabad66Kolkata64Jaipur62Pune58Ahmedabad44Allahabad41Chandigarh40Visakhapatnam34Amritsar31Cochin28Lucknow28Cuttack19Calcutta16Agra14Indore14Raipur11Rajkot9Patna6Guwahati6Jodhpur5SC5Telangana4Nagpur4Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan2Surat2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E87Section 200A39Section 12A35Section 1129Exemption17Section 139(1)14Section 14714Charitable Trust14Section 14813Addition to Income

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

12
TDS11
Section 6810
ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

reopening of the assessment. However, in the present case, it was filed consequent to the notice issued u/s. 153A(a) of the Act. Further, in the present case, exemption u/s. 11 was denied because of non filing of return of income on time and also due to the discrepancies mentioned above. 7.2 In our opinion, the returns of income were

REGIONALSPORTS CENTRE,COCHIN vs. THE JT CIT(OSD)(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 568/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2006-07 Vs Regional Sports Centre, Jt. Director Of Income Tax (Osd) Elamjulam Road, Kadavanthara, (Exemptions), Range-4, Kochi. Kochi. Pan:Aaatr 8832 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2006-07 Vs A.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Regional Sports Centre, Kochi. Elamjulam Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi. Pan:Aaatr 8832 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

trust and deleted by the CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is charitable institution registered under section 12A of the Act. The return for the impugned assessment year was filed on 31/10/2006 declaring nil income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on nil income showing excess application

RAJAGIRI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJAGIRI,KALAMASSERY vs. ITO EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust .......... Appellant Rajagiri, Kalamassery 683104 [Pan: Aaatr5410K] Vs. Ito (Exemption Circle), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.J. Romid, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a public trust rendering services in education and other allied charitable activities. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the case was reopened

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs. MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shyju Joseph, CA
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. During the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed their return of income and claimed the income as exempt u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessment was initially completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act in which the AO had accepted the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 239/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 241/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 236/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 240/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 238/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 242/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

assessment year prior to 01- 06-2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation