Search: reassessment u/s 147 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

62 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,843 Mumbai1,725 Bangalore567 Chennai547 Jaipur518 Ahmedabad435 Hyderabad384 Kolkata362 Pune228 Chandigarh211 Raipur142 Surat140 Indore130 Rajkot119 Amritsar117 Visakhapatnam110 Guwahati74 Lucknow68 Cochin62 Cuttack57 Patna53 Nagpur46 Agra45 Allahabad40 Telangana31 Dehradun28 Jodhpur26 Karnataka24 Orissa7 Ranchi5 Jabalpur5 SC5 Kerala4 Varanasi3 Panaji3 Gauhati1 Rajasthan1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)60 Addition to Income47 Section 14844 Section 26332 Section 14727 Section 153A27 Reassessment26 Section 13222 Section 80

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)

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

21

Search & Seizure20

reassessment u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, was completed vide order dated 10.03.2015 by assessing the total income at Rs.6,96,60,510. Subsequently order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act was passed by order dated 06.08.2015 wherein the total income of the assessee was reduced to Rs.1,60,56,579. 3.2 Subsequently notice was issued

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

24] ■ Further, the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the provisions of section 153A has to be read in the context of section 132 or section 132A, inasmuch as, in case if no incriminating material is found as a result of the search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require mere

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 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

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

24] ■ Further, the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the provisions of section 153A has to be read in the context of section 132 or section 132A, inasmuch as, in case if no incriminating material is found as a result of the search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require mere

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 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

24] ■ Further, the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the provisions of section 153A has to be read in the context of section 132 or section 132A, inasmuch as, in case if no incriminating material is found as a result of the search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require mere

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

24] ■ Further, the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the provisions of section 153A has to be read in the context of section 132 or section 132A, inasmuch as, in case if no incriminating material is found as a result of the search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require mere

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 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

24] ■ Further, the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the provisions of section 153A has to be read in the context of section 132 or section 132A, inasmuch as, in case if no incriminating material is found as a result of the search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require mere

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

24 taxmann.com 310 (SC) (384 ITR 299 )(SC). • Reassessment based merely on change of opinion: 9.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the starting point of the reassessment proceedings now initiated as clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded is the return of income filed originally. The AO thus had no new or additional material based on which he could form

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

24 taxmann.com 310 (SC) (384 ITR 299 )(SC). • Reassessment based merely on change of opinion: 9.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the starting point of the reassessment proceedings now initiated as clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded is the return of income filed originally. The AO thus had no new or additional material based on which he could form

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

24 taxmann.com 310 (SC) (384 ITR 299 )(SC). • Reassessment based merely on change of opinion: 9.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the starting point of the reassessment proceedings now initiated as clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded is the return of income filed originally. The AO thus had no new or additional material based on which he could form

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

24 taxmann.com 310 (SC) (384 ITR 299 )(SC). • Reassessment based merely on change of opinion: 9.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the starting point of the reassessment proceedings now initiated as clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded is the return of income filed originally. The AO thus had no new or additional material based on which he could form

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

u/s 153A shall be computed by considering the originally determined income. If some incriminating material is found in respect of such assessment years for which the assessment is not pending, then the total income would be determined by considering the originally determined income plus income emanating from the incriminating material found during the course of search. In respect of assessment

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

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 736/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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

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 734/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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

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 733/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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running

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

section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of one Shri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, his wife Smt. Valsala Raj and sons Shri Varun Ran and Shri Arun Raj and also in the business concerns of Sreevalsam Group on 08.06.2017. This group of concerns is stated to be engaged in the business of running