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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi221Chennai156Mumbai118Bangalore99Jaipur91Hyderabad80Kolkata69Ahmedabad50Surat40Visakhapatnam37Lucknow35Pune35Panaji32Chandigarh32Rajkot31Agra23Jodhpur18Cuttack18Indore13Patna12Amritsar10Dehradun10Raipur10Allahabad6Nagpur5Cochin4Jabalpur4Varanasi3Calcutta2Ranchi2Karnataka2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 80P8Section 14A6Section 80A(5)5Cash Deposit4Demonetization4Section 143(3)3Section 683Section 142(1)3Unexplained Money3Addition to Income

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. PVT. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of Rs. 7,97,923/- U/s. 14A of the Act and also made an addition of Rs. 4,98,500/- being the cash deposits made in Specified Bank Notes (in short “SBNs”) during the demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM vs. SUNITHA MENON, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed

3
Section 145(3)2
Section 139(1)2
ITA 114/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete this disallowance

EDAMALAYAR SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IX 103A,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 AND TPS , THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 556/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

demonetization period formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment to tax. The AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to file the return of income for the year. However, the appellant had not complied with the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed certain information as called for by the Assessing

KINGSTAR ENTERPRISES,PERUBAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALUVA

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

ITA 33/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms.Krishna K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

disallowing 5% of the total cost of purchase by holding that the assessee purchased rubber from unregistered dealer, i.e., agriculturists. The A.O. also made an addition of Rs.11,50,000 for alleged failure of the assessee to explain cash deposits made in the bank account. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before