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.

17 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai177Delhi138Bangalore57Chennai47Jaipur43Amritsar40Kolkata28Ahmedabad25Surat18Pune18Cochin17Hyderabad15Patna14Chandigarh13Rajkot8Telangana6Indore6Raipur6Lucknow5Nagpur5Guwahati4Visakhapatnam3Karnataka2Agra2SC1Orissa1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)24Section 139(1)16Section 14816Exemption13Addition to Income13Section 271(1)8Section 1474Section 2734Section 1394

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 43/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 45/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

Penalty4

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 41/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 44/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 40/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 39/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 42/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

273, wherein it was held that a sale to sister concern at a price below market price was a device for tax avoidance. It was submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the judgment of the Madras High Court in Choodambika Mills was not brought before Gujarat High Court. According

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act accepting the returned income. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing income. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant u/s. 273 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show notice the appellant submits that

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act accepting the returned income. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing income. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant u/s. 273 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show notice the appellant submits that

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act accepting the returned income. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing income. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant u/s. 273 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show notice the appellant submits that

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act accepting the returned income. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing income. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant u/s. 273 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show notice the appellant submits that