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.

26 results for “reassessment”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi435Mumbai318Bangalore249Kolkata145Jaipur96Ahmedabad70Hyderabad58Rajkot47Chennai45Chandigarh38Surat37Raipur31Indore30Amritsar30Cochin26Ranchi25Pune23Allahabad22Karnataka16Cuttack14Lucknow12Patna11Visakhapatnam9Agra9Telangana6Nagpur4Guwahati2Jabalpur1Calcutta1Dehradun1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jodhpur1Orissa1SC1

Key Topics

Section 12A28Addition to Income25Section 1121Exemption20Section 139(1)17Section 271(1)(c)16Section 153A8Section 1328Section 143(3)7Section 10A

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

7
Charitable Trust7
Penalty5

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

reassessment. The same would: (a) prove that the omission has no bearing on the valuation of closing stock; and (b) that the goods sold at low rates were also, similarly, purchased at a lower price, proving the assessee’s case of the said sale being, as stated, of low grade varieties. Though, surely, it would still be at a loss

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

292 ITR 504 (Del), he held that it is only where a business is in existence that it’s profits and gains, allowing expenditure incurred for it’s purposes, could be computed. Income, accordingly, was assessed at Rs. 35,85,037, i.e., without allowing any claim qua unabsorbed business loss or depreciation. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld

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

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act on 10.02.2022 ( penalty imposed Rs. 38,669/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded). 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty

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

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

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

292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO 10 I.T.A. No. 95&96/C/2016 MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that

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

292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO 10 I.T.A. No. 95&96/C/2016 MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that

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)

292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 49/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 40/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 44/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 48/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 46/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 39/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 42/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A