Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi275 Mumbai184 Chennai164 Kolkata95 Bangalore80 Ahmedabad68 Chandigarh64 Jaipur56 Raipur47 Hyderabad46 Rajkot36 Indore34 Pune27 Agra21 Allahabad21 Cuttack21 Nagpur20 Amritsar19 Cochin19 Patna18 Lucknow14 Jodhpur13 Surat11 Visakhapatnam7 Dehradun7 Ranchi3 Guwahati2 Panaji1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)22 Section 26322 Addition to Income13 Section 14712 Section 153A11 Section 2(22)(e)11 Section 153C8 Revision u/s 2638 Section 1487 Reassessment

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

7

Section 234B(3)5

Deemed Dividend4

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 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

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

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

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

263 in its respect is thus valid. We decide accordingly. 4.8 Issue # 6: Claim in respect of ‘employee stock option scheme’ ‘Assessee has shown 'employee stock option scheme' expenses at Rs.357.88 lakhs (refer note 23). It has also reported this amount towards ‘amortisation' during the year. In the significant accounting policies (refer pare no.2.1-item O), assessee has stated that expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 604/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

ITA 672/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)

263 or section 264, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

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

reassessment where the same is sought to be initiated beyond 4 years of the relevant assessment year. It would be, to our mind, wholly incorrect to, in determining true and full disclosure, be guided by and, in any case, guided solely by the procedure prescribed by the relevant deduction provision, being s. 35(2AB) r/w r. 6 in the instant

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

reassessment where the same is sought to be initiated beyond 4 years of the relevant assessment year. It would be, to our mind, wholly incorrect to, in determining true and full disclosure, be guided by and, in any case, guided solely by the procedure prescribed by the relevant deduction provision, being s. 35(2AB) r/w r. 6 in the instant

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. 2.3 In first appeal, the assessee’s principal grievance, which constituteshis sole grievance before us, i.e., of the reassessment proceedings being time barred, was discussed at length. In view

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (4) Where as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (4) Where as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section