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.

56 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,462Mumbai1,404Jaipur420Kolkata371Ahmedabad342Bangalore338Hyderabad329Chennai296Pune212Chandigarh196Raipur160Rajkot159Indore149Surat120Visakhapatnam118Amritsar84Patna69Guwahati68Lucknow61Cochin56Agra55Nagpur39Cuttack31Jodhpur31Telangana30Allahabad29Dehradun18Karnataka17Jabalpur15Panaji10Ranchi8Orissa7Varanasi7SC4Kerala2Calcutta2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)55Addition to Income45Section 14842Section 14741Section 153A25Reassessment23Section 14A18Section 153C18Section 132

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 26317
Exemption13
Cash Deposit12

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

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

1) can be made after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised, was passed. In this case, the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 26.04.2013 and the reassessment order u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 17.03.2015. If the order u/s 143(3) is reckoned

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

u/s. 69. This assumes relevance as the primary onus for such an addition is on the Revenue inasmuch as it is only on discovery of such an investment that its nature and source is liable to be explained, with an addition ensuing where the same is not found satisfactory. Absence of such challenge to the impugned additions

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

u/s. 69. This assumes relevance as the primary onus for such an addition is on the Revenue inasmuch as it is only on discovery of such an investment that its nature and source is liable to be explained, with an addition ensuing where the same is not found satisfactory. Absence of such challenge to the impugned additions

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

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

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

147 and issue notices us 148A& 148 of theAct. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had conveniently ignored all the above and by dismissing such grounds, regularized all the irregularities of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and his actions without jurisdiction and placing notices in wrong email addresses with wrongly spelt domain names. 12 A&B Associates By setting aside

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

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped

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

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 696/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KERALA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 732/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 700/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BHAVAN PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 699/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 697/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 698/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 695/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made