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.

2 results for “reassessment”+ Charitable Trustclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai137Mumbai112Delhi85Hyderabad52Pune42Jaipur37Bangalore35Allahabad26Ahmedabad26Chandigarh24Agra9Amritsar7Visakhapatnam6Cuttack6Guwahati6Indore6Raipur5Lucknow5Patna5Dehradun4Rajkot4Nagpur3Surat3Cochin2Jodhpur2Kolkata2

Key Topics

Section 6810Section 12A2Section 143(3)2Section 1482Unexplained Cash Credit2Exemption2Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2Addition to Income2

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), after examining the matter, upheld the order of the AO. It was observed that while the assessee had provided certain lists of depositors or creditors, it failed to reconcile the same

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), after examining the matter, upheld the order of the AO. It was observed that while the assessee had provided certain lists of depositors or creditors, it failed to reconcile the same