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.

22 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai687Delhi446Chennai290Bangalore231Jaipur154Ahmedabad140Kolkata124Hyderabad79Pune71Raipur62Indore53Amritsar48Chandigarh42Cuttack39Visakhapatnam34Surat30Lucknow28Cochin22Karnataka17Rajkot16Jodhpur13Guwahati9Panaji8Agra5Patna5Jabalpur4SC4Kerala3Nagpur3Ranchi3Dehradun2Varanasi2Telangana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)39Section 14738Section 14832Section 10B15Depreciation15Reassessment12Reopening of Assessment12Addition to Income10Section 10A

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.2.2023 wherein appeal filed by assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 2637
Disallowance7
Exemption7

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.2.2023 wherein appeal filed by assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

u/s. 143(3) originally completed vide order 24.12-2007. It was submitted that the previous CIT(A) had given directions to the Assessing Officer for allowing claims after verification of the facts/documents vide order dated 26.02.2008. It was submitted that the assessment to electricity duty and other statutory levies aggregating to Rs.215,25,23,965/- was against the order

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 52/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

u/s. 143(3) originally completed vide order 24.12-2007. It was submitted that the previous CIT(A) had given directions to the Assessing Officer for allowing claims after verification of the facts/documents vide order dated 26.02.2008. It was submitted that the assessment to electricity duty and other statutory levies aggregating to Rs.215,25,23,965/- was against the order

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

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 loss u/s. 72 of the I.T. Act and unabsorbed depreciation

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.MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIR-1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 544/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act in terms of first proviso to section 147of the Act and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the said order of the Assistant Commissioner Circle I, Kottayam, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. He relied on the following

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

ITA 522/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation Wing Calicut that bank account No. 1331 in the name of M/S. M.P. Traders shows huge credits and all these are cheque payments from

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 507/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

depreciation for charitable trusts have been introduced in the Income Tax Act by inserting sub-section (6) of section 11 by the Finance Act, (No.2), 2014 with effect from 01/04/2015, i.e., assessment year 2015- I.T.A. Nos. 327&507/Coch/2019 16. He relied on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Kalinga Cultural Trust cited supra

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 327/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

depreciation for charitable trusts have been introduced in the Income Tax Act by inserting sub-section (6) of section 11 by the Finance Act, (No.2), 2014 with effect from 01/04/2015, i.e., assessment year 2015- I.T.A. Nos. 327&507/Coch/2019 16. He relied on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Kalinga Cultural Trust cited supra

SRI.JOSEPHERSON ANTONY,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(2), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 382/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: --- None --- (written submission)For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 21.03.2014. In the said reassessment an addition of Rs.7,00,462 was made. The expenses debited under profit and loss account as software support and maintenance expenses was disallowed by the A.O. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the said expenses cannot be considered

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

147 of the I.T.Act on 28.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively. In the assessments completed, total income determined for assessment year 2012-2013 was at Rs.26,28,950 and for assessment year 2013-2014 was at Rs.25,18,390. The additions of Rs.5,15,165 and Rs.2,22,127 for assessment years

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

147 of the I.T.Act on 28.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively. In the assessments completed, total income determined for assessment year 2012-2013 was at Rs.26,28,950 and for assessment year 2013-2014 was at Rs.25,18,390. The additions of Rs.5,15,165 and Rs.2,22,127 for assessment years

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal