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.

87 results for “disallowance”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,474Delhi1,187Bangalore537Chennai482Kolkata281Jaipur242Ahmedabad181Hyderabad137Pune98Cochin87Surat86Chandigarh86Indore86Allahabad57Lucknow54Raipur54Rajkot46Nagpur41Karnataka37Calcutta37Amritsar37Visakhapatnam31Guwahati24Ranchi18Cuttack16SC10Patna10Jodhpur8Panaji7Varanasi7Dehradun4Jabalpur3Telangana3Agra2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2Kerala2

Key Topics

Section 250117Section 143(3)27Disallowance22Section 14A15Deduction12Section 15411Section 3511Section 12A10Section 2639Section 36(1)(va)

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

8
Reassessment7
Exemption7

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 354/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A mandates to make disallowance of the expenses claimed by the assessee in relation to the exempted income. However, such disallowance can be worked out after recording satisfaction after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the present case the assessee is engaged in consultancy services and has declared a total income of Rs. 40,67,150

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 356/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A mandates to make disallowance of the expenses claimed by the assessee in relation to the exempted income. However, such disallowance can be worked out after recording satisfaction after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the present case the assessee is engaged in consultancy services and has declared a total income of Rs. 40,67,150

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 355/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A mandates to make disallowance of the expenses claimed by the assessee in relation to the exempted income. However, such disallowance can be worked out after recording satisfaction after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the present case the assessee is engaged in consultancy services and has declared a total income of Rs. 40,67,150

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 119/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

150,75,82,230/- 5. The appellant-company also reported the following international transactions with the Associated Enterprises (AEs):- Sr.No. Name of the AE Nature of Total amount Method adopted international transaction 1. Joy AlukkasJewellery Export of Jewellery Rs. TNMM LLC, Dubai 18,84,01,929 2. Joy AlukkasJewellery Export of Textiles Rs. 5,12,56,914 TNMM

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 38/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

150,75,82,230/- 5. The appellant-company also reported the following international transactions with the Associated Enterprises (AEs):- Sr.No. Name of the AE Nature of Total amount Method adopted international transaction 1. Joy AlukkasJewellery Export of Jewellery Rs. TNMM LLC, Dubai 18,84,01,929 2. Joy AlukkasJewellery Export of Textiles Rs. 5,12,56,914 TNMM

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

disallowance for the current year, confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), was surely liable to be contested by the assessee. This is particularly relevant as, where successfully done, the same may operate to remove the very basis on which the AO, taking notice thereof, issues notices for reassessment for those years. Indeed, it is liable to be challenged on merits

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40(b)(i) of the Act. Even the FAA does not state of any additional evidence furnished before it nor, in fact, any claim in its respect was made before us. It is, therefore, wrong to say, as the assessee projects, that the disallowance arises only on account of the physical distance – which was not the case even

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowed. The assessee filed a reply stating that the impugned amount debited under finance cost is deductible under section 37(1) of the Act and is of compensatory nature. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 684 and Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills

MAMALA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 2799,ERNAKULAM vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 801/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act. The AO noted that out of the total loans granted by the assessee, only 11.48% was granted for agricultural purposes or allied agricultural purposes. The AO further held that the assessee falls within the definition of a primary Co-operative Bank as provided in the Banking Regulation

EDATHURUTHYKARAN PAVOO GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACITCIRCLE-1, KOCHI

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

ITA 25/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

For Appellant: Smt. Athira Anil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

150/-. Subsequently notice was issued 2 Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 21.03.2014. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.29,40,000/- on advertisement and sale promotion. According to the AO the same is in the nature of donations. The assessment was completed under

TAG CHEMICALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 678/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

disallowance of 25% of depreciation on upfront fees of Rs. 150 crores. Both the parties agreed that the issue is covered in favour of 3 TAG Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. the assessee by this Tribunal, vide its order dated 14.02.2014, for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No. 7507/Mum/2011 & 7111/Mum/2011, which decision was followed for A.Y. 2008-09. The Tribunal

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,00,80,910/- on the ground that the expenditure relating to research and development was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

ITA 228/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Shivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

150 ITR 195 (Kar), wherein it was held as under: “For giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business. If that is found true, then one need not examine further as to whether the asset purchased from

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

ITA 227/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Shivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

150 ITR 195 (Kar), wherein it was held as under: “For giving the benefit of section 36(1)(iii) to the assessee, what is necessary to examine is whether the assessee has used the borrowed capital for the purpose of business. If that is found true, then one need not examine further as to whether the asset purchased from