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.

20 results for “disallowance”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai462Delhi394Bangalore136Chennai109Hyderabad99Kolkata89Jaipur85Raipur54Ahmedabad52Chandigarh39Lucknow37Pune29Indore27Guwahati25Nagpur24Surat23Visakhapatnam21Cochin20Rajkot19Ranchi18SC17Amritsar13Jodhpur13Dehradun10Cuttack7Patna6Allahabad3Agra2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)21Section 10B10Disallowance9Addition to Income9Section 407TDS6Depreciation6Section 1925Section 1325Section 153A

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amounts which remain payable at the end of the relevant financial year (i.e. 31.03.2009) and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which had actually Page 4 of 16 been paid during the previous year as held in Merlyn Shipping and Transports vs. Additional

5
Section 153C5
Section 32(1)(ii)5

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 250

disallowing TDS credit in the name of assessee’s wife. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the CPC in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as follows:- “In the instant case, the interest income accrued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED , ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 162/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 194J

section 192 of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs. 1,63,11,275/- and interest of Rs. 1,23,96,569/- U/s. 201(1A) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 vide order dated 19/01/2024. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 163/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 194J

section 192 of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs. 1,63,11,275/- and interest of Rs. 1,23,96,569/- U/s. 201(1A) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 vide order dated 19/01/2024. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED , ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 161/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 194J

section 192 of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs. 1,63,11,275/- and interest of Rs. 1,23,96,569/- U/s. 201(1A) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 vide order dated 19/01/2024. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 160/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 194J

section 192 of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs. 1,63,11,275/- and interest of Rs. 1,23,96,569/- U/s. 201(1A) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 vide order dated 19/01/2024. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order considering

M/S.BODYGEAR INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 274/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Omanakuttan, Senior AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

section 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has 3 ITA No.274/Coch/2023. Bodygear International Pvt.Ltd. confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.10B of the Act by holding that filing revised return does not amount to substitution of the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, does not constitute a sufficient

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 522/COCH/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

disallowance on account of excess wastage and depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation Wing Calicut that bank account No. 1331 in the name of M/S. M.P. Traders shows huge credits

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowing an amount of INR 93,75,000 on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete fees paid under 32(1)(ii) of the Act, without considering the detailed submissions and judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in purely relying only on the decision of Delhi

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowing an amount of INR 93,75,000 on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete fees paid under 32(1)(ii) of the Act, without considering the detailed submissions and judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in purely relying only on the decision of Delhi

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowing an amount of INR 93,75,000 on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete fees paid under 32(1)(ii) of the Act, without considering the detailed submissions and judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in purely relying only on the decision of Delhi

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowing an amount of INR 93,75,000 on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete fees paid under 32(1)(ii) of the Act, without considering the detailed submissions and judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in purely relying only on the decision of Delhi

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowing an amount of INR 93,75,000 on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete fees paid under 32(1)(ii) of the Act, without considering the detailed submissions and judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in purely relying only on the decision of Delhi

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) ------------------------ (b) ------------------------ (c) ------------------------- (d) income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution The same is received