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.

5 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai507Delhi470Jaipur190Bangalore168Chennai127Hyderabad105Kolkata85Rajkot64Ahmedabad64Pune53Chandigarh50Surat50Visakhapatnam50Patna37Guwahati35Nagpur17Indore17Lucknow16Raipur15Amritsar15Jodhpur14Panaji7Agra5Cochin5Allahabad3Karnataka2Ranchi2Kerala2Telangana2SC1Uttarakhand1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 2634Section 133A4Section 1484Penalty4Survey u/s 133A4Section 143(1)

SRI. PAUL VADAKKUMCHERRY,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

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

ITA 129/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

147 dated 25.03.2013 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned DCIT has disallowed the loss of Rs.1,25,715 claimed from Ganga Movies without scrutinizing the facts and figures furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings as is evident from para 3(c) of the assessment order. ITA No.129/Coch/2016. 2 Sri.Paul Vadakkumcherry

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2
Section 1432
Section 2742
Depreciation2
ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
02 Aug 2019
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

133A of the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Soorya Drug House. I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs.21,13,780 and Rs.22

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

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