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.

84 results for “disallowance”+ Section 108clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,429Delhi1,290Bangalore449Chennai364Kolkata308Ahmedabad257Indore214Jaipur194Hyderabad184Pune125Surat109Chandigarh101Agra88Cochin84Rajkot69Raipur59Nagpur57Cuttack52Lucknow37Karnataka37Calcutta35Amritsar28Telangana25Visakhapatnam18Jodhpur17Allahabad16Patna9Guwahati9SC6Panaji4Ranchi2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Dehradun1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 250115Section 2(15)16Section 143(3)13Addition to Income12Section 2638Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Capital Gains8Disallowance7Section 143(2)

M/S.PUNNON BANKERS,CHENGANNUR vs. THE ITO, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 522/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Section 36(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act. 6.1 The assessee was requested to explain as to why there cannot be a proportionate disallowance of interest to account for over-drawing by partners vide letter dated 25/04/2017. The assessee explained that the amount of Rs.90,36,108

M/S.PUNNON BANKERS,CHENGANNUR vs. THE ITO, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 521/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

6
Section 406
Limitation/Time-bar5
ITAT Cochin
16 Dec 2019
AY 2012-13

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

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Section 36(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act. 6.1 The assessee was requested to explain as to why there cannot be a proportionate disallowance of interest to account for over-drawing by partners vide letter dated 25/04/2017. The assessee explained that the amount of Rs.90,36,108

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

disallowed the claim of provisions on standard assets and confined its provisions only to an extent of bad and doubtful debts on the Page 6 of 9 non-performing assets. Hence there is no error in the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 6. Section 263 is to be invoked when the twin conditions of order being erroneous

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

108 & 109/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 Kerala Medical Services Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Corporation Ltd., 1(4), Trivandrum. Near W & C Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014. [PAN: AADCK 4029M] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Adv. Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

108 & 109/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 Kerala Medical Services Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Corporation Ltd., 1(4), Trivandrum. Near W & C Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014. [PAN: AADCK 4029M] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Adv. Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

108 & 109/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 Kerala Medical Services Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Corporation Ltd., 1(4), Trivandrum. Near W & C Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014. [PAN: AADCK 4029M] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Adv. Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement

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

Section 115JB has not been considered by the AO, which is a mistake prejudicial to the interest of revenue.’ That is, non-consideration of certain claims of expenditure for computation of book-profit. The assessee, in reply, admits to the said deficiency, though claims that it would be of no consequence as the tax liability u/s. 115JB, even after considering

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 679/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 92C

108(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and hence cannot be used for benchmarking the transaction. Hence, such comparables ought to be excluded from the final list of comparable companies. d. The TPO/AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that all the comparables chosen by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Documentation meet the FAR test, and as such

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

M/S.PIONEER MOTORS (KANNUR) P. LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), KANNUR

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

ITA 440/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

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

section, and as the expenditure is not related to the current business from which income is returned, the expenditure is not allowable and hence disallowed.” 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding

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

disallowing the MAT credit granted vide order dated 24/12/2010, the rectification order was passed on 11/02/2019 in the present case, which is beyond the statutory limitation period of 4 years. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the impugned order. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material

INCOMETAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), ALAPPUZHA vs. ALLIANCE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, for statistical purpose the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 847/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 11Section 143(3)

108 was filed on 14-11-2018. Therefore, the AO held that Form 10B was filed after the due date. Before me the assessee submitted that the due date of filing return was extended to 28-02-2019 by CBDT for Kerala State due to flood condition, As the last date of filing Income Tax Return and Tax Audit Reports

MARATH VELAYUDHAN JOSHY,TRICHUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 395/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 148

108 days in filing thepresent appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonationpetition explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering thesubmissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there wasreasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of108 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 500/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming