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.

327 results for “disallowance”+ Section 15clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,935 Delhi10,743 Bangalore3,667 Chennai3,576 Kolkata3,198 Ahmedabad1,507 Hyderabad1,157 Jaipur1,152 Pune1,010 Surat671 Indore619 Chandigarh584 Raipur506 Karnataka371 Rajkot331 Cochin327 Amritsar302 Nagpur298 Visakhapatnam278 Lucknow255 Cuttack179 Agra139 Panaji125 Guwahati121 Telangana118 SC110 Jodhpur105 Patna87 Ranchi87 Calcutta79 Allahabad76 Dehradun69 Kerala36 Jabalpur33 Varanasi32 Punjab & Haryana14 Orissa9 Rajasthan9 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7 Himachal Pradesh5 Gauhati2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Tripura1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 25089 Section 80P63 Section 143(3)46 Disallowance35 Deduction35 Section 26334 Section 4032 Section 32(1)(iia)30 Section 5624 Section 54F

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

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

Showing 1–20 of 327 · Page 1 of 17

...

24

Addition to Income23

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

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 287/COCH/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business which would bring it within

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 452/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business which would bring it within

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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)

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

THE PARAKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ADOOR vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

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

ITA 115/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80ASection 80P

section 43B. 3. That may be noted that the statutory laws under the respective contribution schemes have provisions to levy interest, penalty etc. for the delayed payment. Hence, disallowing a genuine business expenditure merely on the ground that it has been paid after relevant due date is not justified. 4. The Appellant rely on the judgments in the cases

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 of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

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

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

ITA 310/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 of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

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 of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

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 of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

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 of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct