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.

228 results for “disallowance”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,229 Delhi3,003 Kolkata1,192 Bangalore1,119 Chennai801 Ahmedabad745 Jaipur728 Hyderabad648 Pune604 Indore415 Chandigarh409 Visakhapatnam376 Surat352 Rajkot254 Cochin228 Raipur167 Cuttack139 Amritsar135 Agra134 Lucknow118 Nagpur106 Guwahati89 Jodhpur72 Allahabad72 Patna71 Ranchi59 Karnataka55 Calcutta52 Panaji51 Telangana32 Jabalpur25 SC22 Dehradun19 Varanasi16 Punjab & Haryana6 Kerala5 Orissa4 Rajasthan2 Uttarakhand2 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Tripura1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Bombay1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14A135 Section 80P134 Deduction52 Disallowance48 Section 25047 Section 143(3)42 Section 139(1)39 Section 143(1)(a)36 Section 80A35 Section 148

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

section 142(1) by which the Assessing Officer has made any inquiry in respect of claim of the disallowance of expenditure

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Showing 1–20 of 228 · Page 1 of 12

...

31

Addition to Income28

Condonation of Delay16

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed

ITAT Cochin

27 Jun 2022

AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

disallowance cannot be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 6. We further observe that Section 80AC(ii) has been amended by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2018. The case before us is related to AY 2016-17. Accordingly the amendment will not apply in this case for the impugned assessment year. A similar issue has been decided

M/S.CHELANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

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

ITA 143/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S Chelannur Service Cooperative Vs The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd Ward 2(3), Calicut No.F 1242 Po Chelannur Calicut 673 616 ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 148Section 40aSection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of M/s Kadachira Service Cooperative Bank ltd vs ITO (2013) 153 TTJ (Cochin) 129 for the assessment year 2009-10 in which it has been held that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80P if return of income

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 272/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 274/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 275/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 746/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 273/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE ACIT, , KOCHI vs. M/S.FEDERAL BANK LTD, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 309/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 747/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.FEDERAL BANK LTD, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 311/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 34/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 33/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 35/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin

Section 147Section 14ASection 154

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” ITA Nos. 745 to 747/Coch/2019 ITA Nos. 33 to 35, 272 to 275, 309 to 311/Coch/2020 Page 6 of 28 The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior