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.

51 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10B(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai922Delhi832Bangalore544Kolkata398Chennai304Ahmedabad224Pune201Hyderabad157Chandigarh98Jaipur63Cochin51Karnataka50Lucknow38Indore33Visakhapatnam32Cuttack32Rajkot30Surat27Nagpur15Amritsar14Jodhpur13Agra10Telangana9Dehradun8Guwahati8Varanasi7Panaji6Ranchi6Calcutta4Raipur4Patna4Jabalpur3Allahabad1SC1Himachal Pradesh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 10B110Section 10A60Section 1157Section 12A48Section 139(1)43Section 143(3)37Section 153A32Deduction28Exemption24Section 80

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 120/COCH/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 1996-97

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

Section 10BSection 143Section 249Section 4Section 80H

2) The CIT(A) ought not to have rejected the claim for exemption u/s. 10B. None of the reasons stated by the CIT(A) justify the confirmation of the disallowance. The main observations of the CIT(A) are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) The CIT(A) had gone wrong in confirming income of Rs.42

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

21
Disallowance21
Addition to Income19
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

2 M/s.US Technology International P.Ltd. income had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was received by the assessee-company on 28.09.2010. Thereafter draft assessment order was issued u/s 144C of the I.T.Act disallowing the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act and interest expenses on funds advanced. In response to the draft assessment

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

10B of the Income Tax Act was 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 10A(2

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)

10B to account for, inter alia, differences in (a) accounting practices (b) marketing expenditure adjustment risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. The TPO erred in law in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8. Disallowance

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)

10B to account for, inter alia, differences in (a) accounting practices (b) marketing expenditure adjustment risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. The TPO erred in law in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8. Disallowance

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

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that disallowance of Rs. 55,78,022/- u/s 40(a)(ia) is not warranted even though the assessee neither deducted tax at source from the payments made to non- residents nor did it file the declaration as required under section 195(6) of the Act r. w. Rule

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)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming

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)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming

THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S. THE ALLEPPEY CO. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objection by

ITA 138/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & Cross Objection No.19/Coch/2016

Section 10BSection 10bSection 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 1OSection 2(45)Section 5

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 23,21,409/- claimed by the assessee u/s 1OB of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction u/s 1OB on the ground that the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration was loss. 4. Section 10B

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 375/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act. Before 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

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

2 of section 10A and hence, the submissions of the learned Departmental representative that only units set-up in Free Trade Zone are eligible and are covered by Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct. In the Paper Book filed by assessee (Pgs. 83 to 88) the certificate of the Chartered Accountant filed in Form

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

2 of section 10A and hence, the submissions of the learned Departmental representative that only units set-up in Free Trade Zone are eligible and are covered by Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct. In the Paper Book filed by assessee (Pgs. 83 to 88) the certificate of the Chartered Accountant filed in Form

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

2 of section 10A and hence, the submissions of the learned Departmental representative that only units set-up in Free Trade Zone are eligible and are covered by Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct. In the Paper Book filed by assessee (Pgs. 83 to 88) the certificate of the Chartered Accountant filed in Form

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)

2(iii) plant and machinery previously used. Sub-section 3 Sales and proceeds of computer software Yes should be received within a period of 6 months or such other extended time prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. Sub-section 4 The profits eligible for section 10A of the Act, Yes shall be the amount which bears to the profits

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

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 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

M/S. ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 373/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10BSection 70Section 72

disallowance of set off of brought forward loss. 2. Though the assessee has mentioned the quantum of brought forward business loss not allowed for the assessment year 2008-09 as Rs.84,43,209/-, 2 I.T.A. Nos.373 & 374/Coch/2016 corresponding figure is not available in its grounds for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S.ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 374/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10BSection 70Section 72

disallowance of set off of brought forward loss. 2. Though the assessee has mentioned the quantum of brought forward business loss not allowed for the assessment year 2008-09 as Rs.84,43,209/-, 2 I.T.A. Nos.373 & 374/Coch/2016 corresponding figure is not available in its grounds for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that