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.

16 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi301Mumbai253Bangalore96Jaipur71Ahmedabad58Hyderabad47Rajkot40Chennai35Chandigarh32Raipur30Kolkata29Surat28Allahabad22Pune17Cochin16Indore16Lucknow10Patna9Amritsar7Agra5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Nagpur3Karnataka3Jabalpur1Gauhati1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income16Section 271(1)(c)13Exemption13Section 143(3)6Penalty3Section 372Section 271(1)(C)2Section 271(1)2Section 133A

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)
2
Section 1482
Section 692
Unexplained Investment2
Section 37

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act on 10.02.2022 ( penalty imposed Rs. 38,669/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded). 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

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

292 ITR 416), CIT vs Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (236 ITR 113) and CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd (91 ITR 8)relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to him since the first decision is on the taxability of the permanent establishment under the double taxation avoidance agreement and as ruled in the second decision, the 15 I.T.A

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

147 before appeals. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. K. Mahim reported in 15 Taxman 557 has held that mere filing of return would not exonerate assessee from liability to penalty, nor filing of revised return after the departmental investigation would absolve the assessee from penalty.” 4. The CIT(A) observed that

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

147 before appeals. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. K. Mahim reported in 15 Taxman 557 has held that mere filing of return would not exonerate assessee from liability to penalty, nor filing of revised return after the departmental investigation would absolve the assessee from penalty.” 4. The CIT(A) observed that