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.

38 results for “disallowance”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai621Delhi501Bangalore278Chennai138Kolkata119Ahmedabad109Pune94Jaipur88Hyderabad86Chandigarh73Indore42Cochin38Lucknow36Visakhapatnam35Surat29Raipur28Nagpur26Rajkot22Amritsar19Patna18Jodhpur16Guwahati12Panaji10Agra7Jabalpur7Cuttack6Allahabad5Dehradun4SC2Ranchi1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 15479Rectification u/s 15429Section 143(3)27Section 80P27Section 115J24Section 143(1)(a)24Section 143(1)23Deduction15Disallowance14Section 12A

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

disallowed on processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a). It’s plea for extension of subsequent registration, on the ground that rectification proceedings are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, is misconceived. When processing u/s. 143(1) is itself not an assessment, how could rectification thereof possibly be? That apart, ‘rectification’ u/s. 154

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 244A13
Addition to Income12

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR 2(1),KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 990/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Radesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35

rectification proceedings 4 Sud Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to the application made by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act, vide order dated 26.02.2019 passed u/s. 154 the amount of disallowance

BENEDICT WILFRED,THIRUVANANATHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANATHAPURAM

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

ITA 64/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2012-13 Benedict Wilfred .......... Appellant 513, 350 Punchiri, Kottappuram, Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram-695521. Pan: Ahvpb6093J Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant By: Shri Shaji V Nair, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Shaji V Nair, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

disallowance of interest component of Rs. 15,10,743/-. The order of passed U/s. 154 of the Act came to be noticed through ITBA portal. Therefore, it is submitted that the order U/s. 154 of the Act was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence, it is the prayer of the appellant that the matter

N.C.JOHN & SONS PRIVATE LTD,ALLEPPEY vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 369/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 N.C. John & Sons Private Ltd. .......... Appellant 16/329, N.C. John Bldgs., Vcnb Raod Vazhicherry, Aleppey 688001 [Pan: Aabcn0264H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Kirshnakumar A, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Kirshnakumar A, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

disallowed MAT credit of Rs. 13.81 lakhs. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal including the grounds challenging the limitation. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO sought

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

u/s. 154. Till such time as the above mistakes are rectified and the demand revised, we may not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the tax presently demanded for A. Y.2008-09.” 4. Vide order dated 24/03/2016 passed under section 154 of the Act, though the assessed income of the assessee remained unchanged, however refund

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

rectification order to be passed. After receipt of the order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

rectification order to be passed. After receipt of the order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page

SINUJ VIJAYAN,VADAKKENCHERRY vs. ITO,WARD2, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 806/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sinuj Vijayan .......... Appellant Vijay Steels, Bus-Stand, Vadakkencherry Palakkad 678683 [Pan: Asnpv3671K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Chruch Road Palakkad 678001

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 154

disallowance of expenditure claimed. 3. Subsequently the AO issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act on 16.07.2021 proposing to make addition of rent payable at Rs. 2,76,000/- credited to the capital account of the appellant. In reply to the said notice, the appellant submitted that the said sum represents the rent payable to grandmother of the appellant

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 369/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

disallowance of bonus, the Ld.CIT(A) accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the same. 4. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13: Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 369 to 371/Coch/2023 “1) The main dispute in this appeal

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 371/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

disallowance of bonus, the Ld.CIT(A) accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the same. 4. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13: Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 369 to 371/Coch/2023 “1) The main dispute in this appeal

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 370/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

disallowance of bonus, the Ld.CIT(A) accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the same. 4. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13: Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 369 to 371/Coch/2023 “1) The main dispute in this appeal

CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on 1.12.2017, which has been rejected vide order dated 18.7.2017. As rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R. assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be made for disallowing

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

154 dated 16- 05-2024 rectifying his own order u/s 263 dated 29-03-2023. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT failed to note that there are no mistakes apparent in his own order dated 29- 03-2023 and he ought not to have reviewed his own order under

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

rectification u/s. 154. The depreciation claimed and allowed for that year would be irrespective of the extent unabsorbed entitled to be carry-forward for this year, forming part of the current year’s depreciation, reducing the open written down value (WDV) thereby. No issue therefore, in our view, arises for being considered by the AO. The Revenue has no case

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

rectification, was the only recourse available in law. No notices u/s. 148 (which proceedings are even otherwise for the benefit of the Revenue)were issued, so that the assessee stating that the returns of September, 2018 were in response to notices u/s. 148, is again incorrect, with in fact the return/s mentioning the date/s of the Intimation/s u/s

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

rectification, was the only recourse available in law. No notices u/s. 148 (which proceedings are even otherwise for the benefit of the Revenue)were issued, so that the assessee stating that the returns of September, 2018 were in response to notices u/s. 148, is again incorrect, with in fact the return/s mentioning the date/s of the Intimation/s u/s

NELLIKKAPARAMBA AGRICULTURAL AND WORKERS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED D 3065,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 991/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nellikkaparamba Agricultural & Workers .......... Appellant Welfare Co-Op. Society Ltd. Nellikkaparamba, Mukkam P.O. Kozhikode 673602 [Pan: Aacan4104B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

rectification of the intimation was made vide application dated 09.06.2020. The said application came to be disposed of vide order passed u/s. 154 of the Act on 11.07.2020 confirming the disallowance

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

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

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

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

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

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee