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.

24 results for “reassessment”+ Section 201(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi589Mumbai354Bangalore292Chennai204Jaipur117Ahmedabad94Kolkata55Chandigarh44Visakhapatnam36Pune35Cuttack31Rajkot29Hyderabad28Raipur28Cochin24Amritsar19Jodhpur17Surat12Patna12Indore12Lucknow11Dehradun8Karnataka7Guwahati5Nagpur5Panaji4Allahabad3SC3Telangana3Agra2Uttarakhand1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 153A28Section 12A28Addition to Income23Section 13222Section 1121Section 139(1)17Section 4010Section 143(3)9Section 10A7Charitable Trust

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition filed

ITA 122/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

section 201(3), the Courts have held that when the statute does not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

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

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

7
Exemption7
Deduction4
ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

201/-. 11.1 On appeal the CIT(A) applied GP @ 20%. The assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.4,84,15,603/- on which GP @ 20% was Rs.96,83,121/- as against GP of Rs.65,72,309/- returned by the assessee. The difference in GP at Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.31,10,812/- as against addition of Rs.1

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

section 153A of the I.T. Act, where search is initiated u/s. 132 in the case of a person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person and assess or reassess his total income in respect of each of six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 which search is conducted

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

section 153A of the I.T. Act, where search is initiated u/s. 132 in the case of a person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person and assess or reassess his total income in respect of each of six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 which search is conducted