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.

18 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 44clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,016Mumbai914Bangalore373Chennai341Ahmedabad198Jaipur181Kolkata160Chandigarh139Hyderabad127Raipur93Pune87Surat78Amritsar64Rajkot56Lucknow50Indore46Visakhapatnam43Allahabad34Cuttack31Telangana30Guwahati30Nagpur25Patna23Cochin18Jodhpur17Dehradun15Agra12Karnataka11Orissa4Kerala3SC3Panaji1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1Ranchi1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 244A45Section 4025Section 15420Section 143(3)13Section 14712Section 3(1)10Section 14810Reassessment8Section 263

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

44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the notice u/s 148 was issued.” 9. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the reasons recorded very clearly show that, the only material that the AO has relied on, to make the addition is the audited Balance sheet. Profit & Loss account

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

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

5
Rectification u/s 1545
Exemption4
Depreciation4
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

44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the notice u/s 148 was issued.” 9. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the reasons recorded very clearly show that, the only material that the AO has relied on, to make the addition is the audited Balance sheet. Profit & Loss account

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

44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the notice u/s 148 was issued.” 9. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the reasons recorded very clearly show that, the only material that the AO has relied on, to make the addition is the audited Balance sheet. Profit & Loss account

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

44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the notice u/s 148 was issued.” 9. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the reasons recorded very clearly show that, the only material that the AO has relied on, to make the addition is the audited Balance sheet. Profit & Loss account

SREEVALSAM HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LTD,RAJAVALSAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 115/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

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

u/s 147 will be rendered invalid -reliance placed on Saraswati Garewal [2024] 158 taxmann.com 37 (Raipur ITAT), Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 315 (Bom) and Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 409 (Del). Finally it is contended that no reassessment proceedings can be initiated for the purpose of making protective addition placing

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

44,51,588/- though the business was really in a heavy loss and hence shut down as early as in July 2018. Having denied of all the opportunities to present its case and thereby deprived of natural justice, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority seeking justice and cancellation of the order. The first appellate authority, after

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 531/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

44,880/-. Subsequently, reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, , KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 533/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

44,880/-. Subsequently, reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 532/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

44,880/-. Subsequently, reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 530/COCH/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jun 2025AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

44,880/-. Subsequently, reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 529/COCH/2023[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jun 2025AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

44,880/-. Subsequently, reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty is levied u/s.3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 on all the registered licensees in the State

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty is levied u/s.3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 on all the registered licensees in the State

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty is levied u/s.3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 on all the registered licensees in the State

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty is levied u/s.3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 on all the registered licensees in the State

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty is levied u/s.3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 on all the registered licensees in the State

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150

147 read with sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 04.03.2015 for assessment years (AYs.) 2005- 2006 & 2008-09, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide his orders of even date (05.01.2023). The appeals raising a common issue, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 158/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150

147 read with sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 04.03.2015 for assessment years (AYs.) 2005- 2006 & 2008-09, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide his orders of even date (05.01.2023). The appeals raising a common issue, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake