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.

39 results for “reassessment”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai644Delhi453Chennai275Kolkata253Bangalore201Jaipur173Ahmedabad109Chandigarh92Pune91Hyderabad79Indore62Raipur58Visakhapatnam55Rajkot48Cuttack41Cochin39Amritsar27Nagpur25Agra24Patna21Allahabad21Lucknow15Surat15Jodhpur14Karnataka10Jabalpur7Dehradun7Guwahati5Ranchi4Varanasi3Calcutta3SC2Himachal Pradesh2Kerala1Rajasthan1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26379Section 143(3)51Section 14741Section 14827Section 10A25Section 10B22Addition to Income16Reassessment16Revision u/s 26316Section 234B

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

revised, was passed. In this case, the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 26.04.2013 and the reassessment order u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 17.03.2015. If the order u/s 143(3) is reckoned for invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 37(1)12
Limitation/Time-bar10

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri. K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)Section 2(24)(ii)

reassessment when the issue raised in the revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was not subject matter of reassessment u/s

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S APPOLLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 53/COCH/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Santhom Bose [CIT-DR]For Respondent: Sri. V.Sathyanarayanan, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 234B(4)Section 263

u/s 28 Mar 2007 Partially allowed 2151 for the appeal filed against CIT(A) order of assessment and reassessment. 9. Appeal effect order dated 09 Apr 2007 7,03,08,250 3,63,84,519 09/04/2007 passed by AO post ITAT, Kochi order dated 28/03/2007 10 Revision order passed by 08 Mar 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax u/ 263

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

revision ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 5 Sri.Sahadevan K. order. We noticed that on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Dr.Damodar Rout v. CIT in ITA No.44/2014 (judgment dated 20th March, 2019) had reversed the Tribunal’s order. In the case of Dr.Damodar Rout (supra) the ITAT had dismissed the appeal in limine

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

revision ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 5 Sri.Sahadevan K. order. We noticed that on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Dr.Damodar Rout v. CIT in ITA No.44/2014 (judgment dated 20th March, 2019) had reversed the Tribunal’s order. In the case of Dr.Damodar Rout (supra) the ITAT had dismissed the appeal in limine

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

ITA 744/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Advocate &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 194ASection 263Section 263(1)

revision u/s 263 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the same issue was raised at the reassessment

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

revised is order 26.12.2008 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated If reassessment is quashed, revisionary Yes. proceedings will also become infructuous 22. Hence, as reassessment order is quashed, subsequent order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

revised is order 26.12.2008 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated If reassessment is quashed, revisionary Yes. proceedings will also become infructuous 22. Hence, as reassessment order is quashed, subsequent order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

revision order passed U/s. 263 was set-aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 30/01/2009 in ITA Nos. 957 to 951/Coch/2007. Subsequently, based on the information unearthed during the course of the search and seizure operation in the case of M/s Parisons Group of companies that the appellant received loans and advances from the companies namely (1) Parrisons Agrotech

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

revision order passed U/s. 263 was set-aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 30/01/2009 in ITA Nos. 957 to 951/Coch/2007. Subsequently, based on the information unearthed during the course of the search and seizure operation in the case of M/s Parisons Group of companies that the appellant received loans and advances from the companies namely (1) Parrisons Agrotech

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

revision order passed U/s. 263 was set-aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 30/01/2009 in ITA Nos. 957 to 951/Coch/2007. Subsequently, based on the information unearthed during the course of the search and seizure operation in the case of M/s Parisons Group of companies that the appellant received loans and advances from the companies namely (1) Parrisons Agrotech

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

revised returns. Further it was submitted that the additions were only on estimates basis and the assessee has cooperated with the Department at all times and paid the tax due. The Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings by virtue of the order sheet entry dated 30.09.2016. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued show cause notice on 29.11.2018 by pointing

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

revised returns. Further it was submitted that the additions were only on estimates basis and the assessee has cooperated with the Department at all times and paid the tax due. The Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings by virtue of the order sheet entry dated 30.09.2016. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued show cause notice on 29.11.2018 by pointing

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. Therefore the said amount of Rs. 5,28,000/- is required to be taxed u/s 115BBE r.w.s 69 of the Act. It is also to be seen that the assssee has declared Rs. 6,00,000/- as his income as a result of survey u/s 133A of the act. The assessee

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. Therefore the said amount of Rs. 5,28,000/- is required to be taxed u/s 115BBE r.w.s 69 of the Act. It is also to be seen that the assssee has declared Rs. 6,00,000/- as his income as a result of survey u/s 133A of the act. The assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/COCH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 had filed revised returns and furnished Form No.56F for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. Similarly, for assessment year 2011-2012, the claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act was made before the first appellate authority and Form No.56F was submitted. The CIT(A) concluded that he cannot entertain

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 had filed revised returns and furnished Form No.56F for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. Similarly, for assessment year 2011-2012, the claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act was made before the first appellate authority and Form No.56F was submitted. The CIT(A) concluded that he cannot entertain