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.

77 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,741Delhi1,280Chennai547Bangalore504Jaipur437Ahmedabad368Hyderabad310Kolkata302Pune218Chandigarh165Indore129Raipur107Visakhapatnam95Surat91Rajkot86Cochin77Amritsar65Cuttack58Nagpur53Lucknow51Patna41Guwahati38Jodhpur34Telangana30Karnataka26Dehradun22Agra18Allahabad16Ranchi7SC6Panaji6Kerala6Jabalpur6Varanasi3Orissa2Calcutta1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)106Section 14773Section 26356Section 14851Section 10B45Addition to Income43Section 153A40Section 10A34Deduction33

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S APPOLLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 53/COCH/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Sri. A.Santhom Bose [CIT-DR]For Respondent: Sri. V.Sathyanarayanan, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 234B(4)Section 263

deduction claimed u/s 80HHC of the Act that was made and assessed vide order 20.03.2000, is hindered by the visible fact that the taxable income of the Appellant has reduced from Rs. 21,55,66,620/- assessed in the Order passed u/s 143(3) dated 22.03.1996 to Rs.14,70,65,440/- in the Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

Reassessment31
Exemption23
Section 8021

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, as the same are meant for bringing to tax income which has escaped assessment and cannot be basis for assessee to make claims which are barred by limitation.” 3.1 For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. For rejecting

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, as the same are meant for bringing to tax income which has escaped assessment and cannot be basis for assessee to make claims which are barred by limitation.” 3.1 For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. For rejecting

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, as the same are meant for bringing to tax income which has escaped assessment and cannot be basis for assessee to make claims which are barred by limitation.” 3.1 For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. For rejecting

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, as the same are meant for bringing to tax income which has escaped assessment and cannot be basis for assessee to make claims which are barred by limitation.” 3.1 For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. For rejecting

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

147 of the I.T.Act is reckoned, the revisionary order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act would not be time barred. However, the contention of the assessee is that since the subject matter of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 is not covered under the reassessment order, the reassessment order cannot be considered for the time limit purpose u/s 263(2) of the I.T.Act

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri. K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)Section 2(24)(ii)

deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T.Act was not subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the I.T.Act

ACIT,, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.VEEKESY POLYMERS P. LTD, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 151/COCH/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None ---Written Submission---
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB.” 5. Aggrieved by the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred

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
Section 147

u/s. 147 was bad-in-law and reassessment so concluded not valid.” (emphasis, ours) 4. We may at the outset clarify two aspects. Firstly, the assessee’s COs, filed on 25/6/2020, though out of time by 3 days, were admitted as the delay is saved by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020

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
Section 147

u/s. 147 was bad-in-law and reassessment so concluded not valid.” (emphasis, ours) 4. We may at the outset clarify two aspects. Firstly, the assessee’s COs, filed on 25/6/2020, though out of time by 3 days, were admitted as the delay is saved by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020

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

147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The present appeal has come up for hearing in view of the Order, dated 16/06/2025, passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the appeal (ITA No. 31/2025) preferred by the Assessee. Assessment Year 2007-2008 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the order passed

THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S. THE ALLEPPEY CO. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objection by

ITA 138/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & Cross Objection No.19/Coch/2016

Section 10BSection 10bSection 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 1OSection 2(45)Section 5

deduction allowed u/s 10B amounting to Rs.23,21,409 is withdrawn” 3 Aggrieved by the order of the reassessment completed u/s 143 w.r.s 147

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

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

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)

reassessment u/s 147 and the assessment by NFAC has also found the same to be in order. Therefore, when the online portal of the Income tax department is self-explanatory with regard to the deduction

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)

147 or section 153A, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of the 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 as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case

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

deduct whole or any part of the tax from the person resident in India and in the appellant’s case the deductee UST Global Inc USA is a resident of United States of America and not an Indian resident company and therefore the time limit period of six years prescribed u/s. 201(3) will not apply to the present case

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 65/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Written submission by Smt.Lakshmi N., CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 192Section 194Section 40

147 of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 11.12.2014 by making following additions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act : (i) Disallowance of rent Rs.2,88,000 (ii) Disallowance of terminal handling charges Rs.6,40,432 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order completed on 11.12.2014, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 64/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Written submission by Smt.Lakshmi N., CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 192Section 194Section 40

147 of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 11.12.2014 by making following additions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act : (i) Disallowance of rent Rs.2,88,000 (ii) Disallowance of terminal handling charges Rs.6,40,432 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order completed on 11.12.2014, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further