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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai272Delhi146Bangalore90Jaipur59Chennai48Visakhapatnam46Chandigarh45Ahmedabad38Kolkata30Pune29Hyderabad29Surat22Indore17Raipur16Rajkot14Jodhpur14Cochin13Lucknow12Guwahati10Amritsar6Ranchi5Varanasi5Agra3Nagpur3Panaji2Karnataka2SC2Allahabad2Dehradun1Patna1Telangana1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 133A15Section 153A15Addition to Income13Section 13212Survey u/s 133A12Section 2638Section 143(3)8Disallowance7Section 271(1)(c)6Section 148

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act. In view of the above judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of the assessee. Thus, the additional ground for all the assessment years is rejected. 5.8 Regarding common Ground No. 1, this ground and the additional ground raised by the assessee is one and the same

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

5
Depreciation4
Penalty3
ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act. In view of the above judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of the assessee. Thus, the additional ground for all the assessment years is rejected. 5.8 Regarding common Ground No. 1, this ground and the additional ground raised by the assessee is one and the same

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act. In view of the above judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of the assessee. Thus, the additional ground for all the assessment years is rejected. 5.8 Regarding common Ground No. 1, this ground and the additional ground raised by the assessee is one and the same

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22,96,260 for the assessment

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22,96,260 for the assessment

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 09.02.2016. During the course of survey proceedings, undisclosed sales were unearthed and additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was found. Subsequent to the survey the appellant revised the return of income at a total income

M/S.HOTEL GREEN PARK,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 400/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

133A was done in the other business entities connected with the assessee. During the course of survey, certain documents relating to the assessee-firm were impounded which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. The documents impounded suggest an average margin of profit on sale of liquor at the rate of 79.90%. The profit margin on sale of food, soda

M/S.HOTEL GREEN PARK,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 399/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

133A was done in the other business entities connected with the assessee. During the course of survey, certain documents relating to the assessee-firm were impounded which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. The documents impounded suggest an average margin of profit on sale of liquor at the rate of 79.90%. The profit margin on sale of food, soda

M/S.HOTEL GREEN PARK,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 401/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

133A was done in the other business entities connected with the assessee. During the course of survey, certain documents relating to the assessee-firm were impounded which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. The documents impounded suggest an average margin of profit on sale of liquor at the rate of 79.90%. The profit margin on sale of food, soda

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

survey u/s. 133A of the Act at his business premises on 25.3.2008 (para 1 of the assessment order), necessitating the return for the relevant year being subject to the verification procedure under the Act. Further, the note-sheet clearly states that the AO is to examine the claim of refund arising out of advance-tax, which obtains in the instant

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the assessee’s business premises on 08.10.2013 during which discrepancies were noticed in the books of accounts of the assessee for which the assessee had offered additional income of Rs.1 crore in addition to the regular return income of Rs.1,11,620/- but had subsequently filed its revised return

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year