Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

113 results for “disallowance”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,422 Delhi767 Kolkata617 Chennai440 Bangalore420 Ahmedabad300 Pune252 Jaipur234 Hyderabad165 Indore156 Chandigarh151 Visakhapatnam124 Cochin113 Surat112 Rajkot101 Raipur72 Cuttack51 Panaji43 Nagpur40 Jodhpur28 Karnataka27 Lucknow26 Amritsar23 Agra22 Allahabad21 Patna12 Jabalpur9 Dehradun6 Ranchi5 Telangana4 Kerala3 Guwahati3 Calcutta2 Varanasi2 SC1 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 263225 Section 143(3)127 Addition to Income53 Disallowance47 Revision u/s 26341 Deduction40 Section 37(1)33 Section 14A32 Section 10B30 Section 10A

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri. K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)Section 2(24)(ii)

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6

29

Section 80P(2)(a)18

revision is regarding the eligibility of deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of corpus donation that the assessee had received amounting to Rs.2,08,91,000. The corpus donation amounting to Rs.2,08,91,000, whether it is eligible for deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T.Act was not subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

disallowed the amount claimed by the assessee, both u/s 10A and 10B of the I.T.Act. Against the reassessment order, the assessee-company had filed appeal before the CIT(A). 3.2 On 09.10.2016, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings u./s 263 of the I.T.Act, proposing to revise

M/S.COMBINED FOODS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 155/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)

Disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of dividend income from investment in equity shares was omitted to be considered. 3. Assessing Officer’s omission to examine the issue on the taxability of income on account of lapsed liability of freezer deposits. Accordingly, the CIT issued notice u/s. 263 proposing for revision

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the assessments completed legally and in accordance with law cannot be re-opened u/s 263 based on the 3 M/s. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation judicial review of a supervisory authority. The appellant submits that there is no error, which is prejudicial to the revenue, in respect

DHNALAXMI BANK LIMITED,TRICHUR vs. THE PR CIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

revising the assessment u/s 263 of the Act, as the assessment made under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the year is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in making the disallowance

SRI.ABDUL KAREEM,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, ALUVA

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

ITA 123/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.T.John GeorgeFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 153Section 263Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

revise the assessment u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed the reply vide letter dated 05.12.2018. The objections raised in the assessee’s letter ITA No.123/Coch/2019. 3 Sri.Abdul Kareem. dated 05.12.2018 was rejected by the CIT and he passed revisionary order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act by setting aside the assessment order dated 11.11.2016. The relevant finding

M/S.KOLLAM ROYAL PARK HOTEL & RESORTS P> LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KOLLAM

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

ITA 268/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed by making disallowance of Rs.96,044/-. Consequent to the disallowance, the total loss was determined at Rs.10,10,55,520/-. 4. The Pr. CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act proposing to revise

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs. MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 633/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shyju Joseph, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore the consequential order passed by the assessment unit is also an illegal order and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the mere pendency of appeal would not be a ground to attack the order

M/S.ACUMEN CAPITAL MARKET(INDIA) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

ITA 555/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Acumen Capital Marketing (I) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer 3Rd Floor St Reddiar & /Sons Bldg Ward 1(1), Kochi Veekshanam /Road Ernakulam ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43Section 5

revision is bad in law because there is no error in the assessment order warranting interference u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee’s authorized representative had raised specific points with regard to each of the reasons stated in the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act to contend that there is no error in the assessment order

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES M&M) CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 537/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(iib) of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore, the CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act proposing revision

M/S.KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(M&M) CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 536/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(iib) of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore, the CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act proposing revision

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

revise the said assessment. In other words, what the assessing officer could not do directly, the PCIT cannot do indirectly. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co: 94 1TD 131 (Cochin Trib.) (Upheld by Kerala HC in 200 Taxman 154) Abad Fisheries v. DCIT: 80 ITD 153 (Cochin Trib.) In this regard

SNOCAP ICECREAMS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ITO CORPWD-2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 63/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.VeeramaniFor Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha

Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s 263 on the ground that the appellant had land maintenance expenditure which was a capital expenditure and hence needs to be disallowed. After going the reply submitted by the appellant that the land maintenance expense was a revenue expenditure, the Principal Commissioner of 2 M/s.Snocap Icecreams Private Limited. Income Tax passed revision

KADUNGALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.863,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 347/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. While the matter stood thus, the ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. to the interests of Revenue, as the AO failed to verify the issue of taxability of reserves/provisions debited

KADUNGALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2165,KARUMALOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 346/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. While the matter stood thus, the ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. to the interests of Revenue, as the AO failed to verify the issue of taxability of reserves/provisions debited

KADUNGALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2165,KARUMALOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 348/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. While the matter stood thus, the ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. to the interests of Revenue, as the AO failed to verify the issue of taxability of reserves/provisions debited

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

disallowed by the AO against which the company is in appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore the subject matter of appeal is the same as the matter raised in proceedings u/s. 263 which is barred as per clause (c) of Explanation(1) of section 263. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the PCIT. 8. We have heard

M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 420/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 37(1)

disallowable without giving any reference to the applicability of Section 36 (1) ( iii) as claimed by the assessee. It was submitted that as the claim of the assessee that the expenditure was allowable u/s 36 (1)(iii) was rejected by the Pr. CIT, the order u/s. 263 is to be set aside as held by the Supreme Court

M/S.ACUMEN CAPITAL MARKET INDIA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

ITA 37/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 37/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acumen Capital Market Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate India Ltd., Ward-1(1), Kochi. S.T. Reddiar & Sons Bldg., 3Rd Floor, Veekshanam Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 035. [Pan: Aabcp 6449] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Shri Shantham Bose, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2018 O R D E R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

u/s. 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order on the above two issues for de novo examination and passing a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the assessee. I.T.A. No. 37/Coch/2018 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the proposed revision

M/S.ARMAJARO TRADING INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

ITA 10/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Shantham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

revision under section 263 cannot be made to substitute the views of the AO. 8. Without prejudice, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in not appreciating the fact that the share application money was received during the FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 from its holding company Armajaro Trading limited, UK (also known as Ecom Agrotrade Limited