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.

35 results for “reassessment”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai684Delhi660Jaipur233Bangalore223Chennai174Hyderabad129Kolkata127Ahmedabad73Rajkot69Chandigarh61Pune59Visakhapatnam59Amritsar50Surat50Patna48Guwahati44Indore40Cochin35Raipur24Agra19Lucknow18Nagpur17Jodhpur16Ranchi14Panaji7Cuttack4Karnataka4Allahabad3Kerala2SC2Dehradun2Telangana2Calcutta1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income33Section 153A30Section 12A28Section 13224Section 1121Section 139(1)19Section 6814Section 26312Section 115B12Survey u/s 133A

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

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. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

9
Charitable Trust7
Exemption7
ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

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

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. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s

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

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. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s

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

133A of the act. The assessee has not preferred appeal against the Assessing officer's action in assessing the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to tax (vide Assessment order dated 27.09.2017) In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amount

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

133A of the act. The assessee has not preferred appeal against the Assessing officer's action in assessing the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to tax (vide Assessment order dated 27.09.2017) In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amount

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS & WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 326/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

u/s. 133A and the documents impounded during the survey, which were also virtually admitted by the assessee, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal in accepting the materials on record in order to arrive at an assessment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Meriya

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 477/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

u/s. 133A and the documents impounded during the survey, which were also virtually admitted by the assessee, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal in accepting the materials on record in order to arrive at an assessment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Meriya

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 476/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

u/s. 133A and the documents impounded during the survey, which were also virtually admitted by the assessee, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal in accepting the materials on record in order to arrive at an assessment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Meriya

SRI. PAUL VADAKKUMCHERRY,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

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

ITA 129/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act in the case of the assessee. It was found that the assessee was paid on-money for the sale of 42 cents of land. The total consideration paid to assessee was Rs.1.15 crore. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act was issued to the assessee. Pursuant to the notice issued u/s

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

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22,96,260 for the assessment

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

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22,96,260 for the assessment

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 80/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

survey u/s 133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure u/s

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 79/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

survey u/s 133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure u/s

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 81/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

survey u/s 133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure u/s

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 299/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

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

Section 68

reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed. 2. The claim of advance taken towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. in the building to be constructed is factually incorrect since

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 298/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 68

reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed. 2. The claim of advance taken towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. in the building to be constructed is factually incorrect since

M/S.KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 369/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 68

reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed. 2. The claim of advance taken towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. in the building to be constructed is factually incorrect since

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

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 Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee

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

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 Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee

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

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 Court relying on the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993)109 CTR (Guj.) 272: (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) held that though the assessee