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.

10 results for “reassessment”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai885Delhi251Ahmedabad211Jaipur154Kolkata134Chennai123Hyderabad121Raipur106Chandigarh99Pune96Bangalore92Rajkot79Nagpur54Patna50Guwahati48Indore41Visakhapatnam38Surat36Amritsar29Cuttack21Lucknow19Allahabad14Agra10Dehradun10Cochin10Jodhpur8Ranchi5Panaji1Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14720Section 143(3)13Section 14811Section 115B5Addition to Income5Section 69A4Section 694Section 1154Reassessment4Section 250

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

loss’ is liable to be carried 11 | P a g e Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. Asst. CIT forward only where it stands claimed per a return of income for the relevant year u/s. 139(1) (s. 139(3)). The same may not impact a claim for carry forward of UAD. In sum 5. We may finally capsule our findings

3
Set Off of Losses3
Depreciation2

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

reassessment proceedings, it was observed on the verification of the cash flow statement and statement of income filed by the assessee, it 3 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. was observed that the assessee has shown an income of INR 8,50,000 under the head “Income from Other Sources”, which was not duly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer

GOLD PLAZA INDIA (PVT)LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO. WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 973/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07 Gold Plaza India (Pvt) Ltd. .......... Appellant Cresent House, Manoor P.O., Kaladi Malappuram 679582 [Pan: Aabcg8869K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Kittu, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

carry forward loss. Against the said 2 Gold Plaza India (Pvt) Ltd. return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") passed u/s. 143(3) 5r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 8,23,167/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Forward of loss'. Hence the deeming provisions from sections 68 to 69D are without any reference to incomes of any class, if the conditions therein are satisfied and, therefore, deemed income falling in these provisions will not be restricted or governed by any other provisions. The onus is on the assessee to establish the source of the income disclosed

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Forward of loss'. Hence the deeming provisions from sections 68 to 69D are without any reference to incomes of any class, if the conditions therein are satisfied and, therefore, deemed income falling in these provisions will not be restricted or governed by any other provisions. The onus is on the assessee to establish the source of the income disclosed

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

carry-forward for this year, forming part of the current year’s depreciation, reducing the open written down value (WDV) thereby. No issue therefore, in our view, arises for being considered by the AO. The Revenue has no case, with the ld. Pr. CIT having himself not made any adverse comment in the matter (para 6.1) 4.3 Issue

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

forwarded Form No. 3CL on 30.11.2011, which is much before the date of reopening of assessment u/s. 147, it was the duty of the AO to obtain the same from the competent authority, if it really needed for the purpose of scrutiny assessment. In view of facts of this Page 2 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

forwarded Form No. 3CL on 30.11.2011, which is much before the date of reopening of assessment u/s. 147, it was the duty of the AO to obtain the same from the competent authority, if it really needed for the purpose of scrutiny assessment. In view of facts of this Page 2 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch

POPULAR MOTORWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(5), KOCHI

ITA 538/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neetu S, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

carried out during free service period scheme to the customers and even though no consideration is received, service tax was payable by Assessee on the same during the year on notional basis. In this regard, free service income declared by Assessee was Rs. 93,23,575/-.The receipts liable to service tax in the case were service income and commission

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

forwarding the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, the assessee found that it was sent to another e-mail id "absunnyspharma@gmal.com". This ID was also not a proper id of the firm and while sending the same the spelling of the domain "gmail" was wrong and hence the fate is unknown. There is no reasonable chance