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.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Section 10A(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai113Delhi113Bangalore59Chennai55Hyderabad40Kolkata23Jaipur18Cochin13Ahmedabad12Lucknow11Surat10Pune9Karnataka9Telangana6Indore6Guwahati3Amritsar3Cuttack3Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Dehradun1Jodhpur1Orissa1Panaji1Ranchi1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10B37Section 10A34Section 153A25Section 143(3)24Section 8021Section 14713Deduction13Section 139(1)11Section 14810Reassessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

5) and section 80AC to deny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions

7
Addition to Income6
Disallowance5

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

5) and section 80AC to deny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

5) and section 80AC to deny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

5) and section 80AC to deny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

5) and section 80AC to deny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 375/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee filed return under Section 148 of the Act on 19/04/2012 claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act and in support obtained certificate in Form No. 56F from its auditors. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act. Before

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

10A and 10B of the I.T.Act. Against the reassessment order, the assessee-company had filed appeal before the CIT(A). 3.2 On 09.10.2016, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings u./s 263 of the I.T.Act, proposing to revise the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act. Against the notice issued by the CIT to revise

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 164/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

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 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 162/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

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

DCIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S BABY MARINE INTERNATIONAL, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 227/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Shanthom BoseFor Respondent: Sri.Iype Mathew
Section 288(2)Section 44A

section, which is explained by the Board in the Circular no.387 dated 06.07.1984: "17.2. A proper audit for tax purposes would ensure that the books of accounts and other records are properly maintained, that they faithfully reflect the income of the tax payer and claims for deduction are correctly made by him. Such audit would also help in checking fraudulent

M/S.AKAY FLAVOURS & AROMATICS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesseee is allowed as indicated

ITA 491/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 32(2)Section 72

section 10B of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 1,04,78,854/-. The assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 was completed vide order dated 27/12/2007. In the reassessment completed, deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 10B of the Act was reduced to ‘Nil’ . The Assessing Officer recomputed the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act after setting off carry forward business