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.

72 results for “reassessment”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,482Mumbai1,477Jaipur473Ahmedabad446Bangalore439Chennai344Kolkata340Pune256Hyderabad232Indore142Rajkot134Raipur124Chandigarh122Surat99Cuttack92Cochin72Amritsar70Agra64Ranchi63Nagpur60Lucknow53Patna50Guwahati49Dehradun43Visakhapatnam41Karnataka41Allahabad29SC24Jodhpur22Telangana21Jabalpur11Panaji11Calcutta6Varanasi5Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Rajasthan1J&K1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Section 271(1)(c)59Section 14847Section 26344Addition to Income43Reassessment36Section 4027Penalty26Section 14724Section 139(1)

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Showing 1–20 of 72 · Page 1 of 4

24
Cash Deposit24
Section 14A19
ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. AO TYPE-W, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 776/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jose Zachariah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that in the case of reassessment

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

reassessment and re-computation of income and not conclusion of penalty proceedings. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties is provided

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

reassessment and re-computation of income and not conclusion of penalty proceedings. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties is provided

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 38,669/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: - 2 Smt. Amina Anvar The assessee an individual filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,25,430/-. The assessment was reopened and reassessment

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

penalty in the instant case has been proposed on the additional income of Rs.1.02 lakh offered in reassessment. Two, even

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

penalty under sub-section (1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.ANTONY'S TIMBER DEP, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 294/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 274

penalty proceedings, if any, that may be initiated against us. " 4,2 Thereafter, the A.O passed order dated 25/03/2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act,1961. In this order he considered the letters filed by the two other persons and the submission filed by the assessee and completed the reassessment

KARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 789/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms. Swathy S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 80P

penalty under Sections 271B and 271F of the Act was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved-by the reassessment completed under Section

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 135/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 136/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 137/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 138/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 134/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,—.. (4) – (6) (7) The penalty

KOTTAMKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KOLLAM

ITA 552/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271B

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment

KOTTAMKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2, KOLLAM

ITA 553/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271B

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment

KOTTAMAKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KOLLAM

ITA 551/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271B

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment