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.

23 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 55(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi792Mumbai733Bangalore275Chennai264Jaipur263Ahmedabad201Hyderabad164Kolkata146Chandigarh119Raipur90Surat83Pune79Indore78Rajkot64Amritsar62Lucknow31Telangana29Nagpur28Guwahati23Cochin23Visakhapatnam22Cuttack21Dehradun16Jodhpur15Patna14Karnataka9Allahabad8Orissa3SC2Panaji2Rajasthan1Agra1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 14719Section 14818Addition to Income18Exemption17Section 143(3)16Section 234B9Section 234B(4)8Depreciation7Reopening of Assessment

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S APPOLLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 53/COCH/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Santhom Bose [CIT-DR]For Respondent: Sri. V.Sathyanarayanan, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 234B(4)Section 263

b) there has been a reduction in the amount of income assessed and taxes payable following the subsequent reassessment u/s 147 and the "giving effect to" orders to the Appellate orders. The case is however applicable on the matter inasmuch as that following such reassessment u/s 147 and the "giving effect to" orders, there is no excess short fall

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

7
Reassessment5
Section 153C4
Section 2(22)(e)2

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

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

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

u/s. 150(1) of the Act and, accordingly, time limit of s. 153(6), where-under, as claimed, the impugned assessment ought to have been completed by 31.10.2014, would not apply. The assessee has before us raised this issue per an additional ground which, since admitted, reads as under: 1. It is respectfully submitted that assessment order is passed beyond

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

55,90,575/-However, in the Return of income filed for AY 2010-11, the opening balance under the same head as on 01.-04.2009 was shown as Rs.20,20,12/986/- resulting in a overnight increase of Rs.64,22,411/-. Since Income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.62,44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147

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

55,90,575/-However, in the Return of income filed for AY 2010-11, the opening balance under the same head as on 01.-04.2009 was shown as Rs.20,20,12/986/- resulting in a overnight increase of Rs.64,22,411/-. Since Income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.62,44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147

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

55,90,575/-However, in the Return of income filed for AY 2010-11, the opening balance under the same head as on 01.-04.2009 was shown as Rs.20,20,12/986/- resulting in a overnight increase of Rs.64,22,411/-. Since Income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.62,44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147

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

55,90,575/-However, in the Return of income filed for AY 2010-11, the opening balance under the same head as on 01.-04.2009 was shown as Rs.20,20,12/986/- resulting in a overnight increase of Rs.64,22,411/-. Since Income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.62,44,411/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered

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

55 (All HC) 3) Airtech (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 139 TTJ (Del) 318 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 6.9.3 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 139 DTR (Mum. Trib.) 1 wherein it was held that whole determining ALP, adjustment for quality difference has to be considered