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.

29 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai587Bangalore524Delhi488Chennai232Pune158Kolkata131Hyderabad109Ahmedabad108Karnataka58Jaipur49Chandigarh48Cochin29Visakhapatnam28Rajkot22Surat21Indore17Telangana13Lucknow11Guwahati10Amritsar9Cuttack6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Raipur3Panaji2Nagpur2Varanasi2SC2Kerala1Calcutta1Ranchi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10A65Section 10B63Section 143(3)33Section 8025Section 153A25Deduction25Section 14823Section 14717Section 139(1)12Disallowance

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

disallowance and the add back that had been made by the Assessing Officer was an increase in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section 10A

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 375/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

12
Addition to Income10
Reopening of Assessment7
22 Aug 2025
AY 2007-08

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

Section 10A of the Act and in support obtained certificate in Form No. 56F from its auditors. The Assessing Officer disallowed

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

disallowed. I.T.A. Nos. 227-229/Coch/2019 & C.O. Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2019 4.2 Regarding claim for exemption u/s. 10A, according to the Assessing Officer as per Section

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 334/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, cited supra. However, the first appellate authority has allow the alternative claim for deduction under section 10A

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 249/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, cited supra. However, the first appellate authority has allow the alternative claim for deduction under section 10A

M/S. CLINIPACE CLINICAL RESEARCH P. LTD(FORMERLY PARAGON BIO MEDICAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 297/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, cited supra. However, the first appellate authority has allow the alternative claim for deduction under section 10A

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/COCH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

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

section 10A / 10B of the Act. The CIT has failed to consider that any disallowance or addition which increases the profits

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

disallowed the amount. The learned CIT(A), after considering the judgement quoted in his order, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Considering the rival submissions we observed that the CIT(A) has decided the issue as under: - “8. I have considered the issue, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. Apparently, it is not in dispute that the payments

PULPATTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2, TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sh.K. Rishal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(1)

section 10A of the Act by the CIT(Appeals), without there being a revised return is illegal and untenable.” (emphasis, ours) Sh. Rishal,the ld. counsel for the assessee, on being questioned by the Bench during hearing, could not meet the said reliance by the ld. CIT(A). His reliance on the decision by the Tribunal in Krushi Vibhag Karmachari

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 637/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip BalachandranFor Respondent: 08.02.2024
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 804(5)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowance made by the ld. A.O. on this ground. It is pertinent to point out that the first appellate authority has not decided the section 80P deduction on the merits as to whether the assessee is a Co-operative Bank or a PACS as claimed by the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

ITA 749/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowing section 10A deduction of Rs.56,48,936/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

ITA 736/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowing section 10A deduction of Rs.56,48,936/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under