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.

189 results for “disallowance”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,264Delhi4,369Ahmedabad1,372Chennai1,007Bangalore1,006Kolkata994Jaipur771Pune766Hyderabad533Indore462Chandigarh352Surat338Cochin189Raipur180Rajkot161Cuttack135Agra128Lucknow122Nagpur118Amritsar99Visakhapatnam91Karnataka67Guwahati64Allahabad55Ranchi52SC47Calcutta43Telangana35Dehradun34Jodhpur32Varanasi31Jabalpur29Panaji25Patna24Kerala6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Section 26362Section 271(1)(c)41Disallowance38Section 4036Section 37(1)29TDS28Addition to Income26Section 54F24Section 201(1)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance made and penalty levied. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not agreeing with the penalty order passed by the AO stating

SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL MENON,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

Showing 1–20 of 189 · Page 1 of 10

...
24
Condonation of Delay24
Deduction21
ITA 486/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri. George JosephFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty against the disallowance of claim of brokerage of Rs.10 lakh. Therefore, the penalty imposed on account of disallowance of brokerage

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis

AISWARYA GRANITES,KOLLAM vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 622/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aiswarya Granites, Egpvii/70, The Assistant Arkannor, Commissioner Of Elavummoodu, Vs. Income Tax, Kollam 691 533. National E- Assessment Centre, Pan No : Aapfa5874K Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Preset Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.3.2022 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner (Appeals) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Is Against-Facts & Law. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Payment Of Commercial Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) Should Have Appreciated That The Amount Paid Was A Statutory Levy Payable By All Crushers Installed In Stone Quarries Based On Their Installed Capacity. The Levy Was To Be Remitted On Quarterly Basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Concluding That The Amount Paid Is In The Nature Of A Compounding Fee For Any Offence Or Towards Aiswarya Granites, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

penalty. Thus the disallowance is wholly unwarranted. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.50

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

disallow Rs.12.77 lakhs and (vi) penalties, fines for late payment of taxes disallowed Rs.43,189 have been made. However, applicability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

disallowed the assessee’s claim of business expenditure amounting to Rs.5,00,75,900/- representing penalty paid to Reserve Bank

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

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

ITA 864/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cgr Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [Pan: Aaccc4855G] Vs. Dcit, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Engaged In The Business Of Refining Precious Metals & Minting Of Coins & Bars. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Disallowance of penalty Rs. 3,58,318/- vi. Disallowance of cash deposits Rs. 1,99,800/- 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal

PADMAKUMAR K P,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 452/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty by stating that the additions / disallowances have been made on estimation and on an adhoc basis, hence, penalty cannot

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 27l(1)(c)

penalty in the quantum of 2 I.T.A. No.463 /Coch/2019 income concealed/for which inaccurate particulars were given. The assessee vide reply dated 24.02.2012 stated that the addition and disallowances