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.

21 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai953Delhi886Bangalore272Kolkata244Chennai220Jaipur122Ahmedabad92Chandigarh86Hyderabad70Pune65Nagpur59Raipur51Surat42Indore40Calcutta36Telangana28Allahabad23Guwahati21Cochin21Lucknow21Karnataka19Cuttack16Amritsar16Visakhapatnam11Rajkot11Patna9Panaji8Jodhpur8SC8Kerala5Jabalpur4Ranchi3Dehradun2Varanasi1Agra1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Disallowance17Section 143(3)10Section 4010Addition to Income10Section 80P(2)(a)9Section 80P9Deduction9Section 40A(2)(b)6Section 14A6Depreciation

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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

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

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

6
Reassessment6
Section 32(1)(ii)5
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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

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 194-I defines rent per Explanation (i) thereto as any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or other agreement or arrangement for the use of land (either separately or alongwith other assets) and, further, irrespective of whether the payee is the owner of the subject property. Whether, therefore, the user of land leads

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD( FORMERLY GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD),KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, all the three appeals field by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/COCH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vivek, CA
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A is warranted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additional ground filed by the appellant to claim deduction towards the amount of Education cess paid on the Income Tax liability for the assessment year. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD9FORMERLY GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICED LTD),KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, all the three appeals field by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vivek, CA
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A is warranted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additional ground filed by the appellant to claim deduction towards the amount of Education cess paid on the Income Tax liability for the assessment year. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD(FORMERLY GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, all the three appeals field by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vivek, CA
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A is warranted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additional ground filed by the appellant to claim deduction towards the amount of Education cess paid on the Income Tax liability for the assessment year. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

BTECH BUILDERS,THIRUVALLA vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 56/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Btech Builders Near Ywca, Railway Station Road Thiruvalla 689101 [Pan: Aahfb8003H] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2024

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 3Section 40

194 and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thambi Modern Spinning Mills 341 ITR 229. However the AO rejected the above contentions and passed order u/s. 154 of the Act vide order dated 30.08.2019 disallowing the above two payments. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned

THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 703/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Revenue by : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowance your appellant filed an Appeal before the Honorable Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi. 1.3. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi while passing the order u/s 250 allowed the appellants claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). 3 ITA.No.703/Coch./2023 1.4. But the Honorable

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

194 wherein, it was held as under: - “6. The substantial questions deal with the amount expended by the assessee towards preoperative expenses for establishing a plant, whether would constitute capital expenditure or revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 37 of the Act enables deduction of any expenditure which is laid out or expended wholly

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

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)

disallowed the claim for allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. The factual backgrounds leading to the above addition are as under. 5. The appellant-company had entered into a non-compete agreement on 29th April, 2009 with the promoter of the company, wherein the promoters had agreed not to operate and carry on the business

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)

disallowed the claim for allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. The factual backgrounds leading to the above addition are as under. 5. The appellant-company had entered into a non-compete agreement on 29th April, 2009 with the promoter of the company, wherein the promoters had agreed not to operate and carry on the business

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)

disallowed the claim for allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. The factual backgrounds leading to the above addition are as under. 5. The appellant-company had entered into a non-compete agreement on 29th April, 2009 with the promoter of the company, wherein the promoters had agreed not to operate and carry on the business

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)

disallowed the claim for allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. The factual backgrounds leading to the above addition are as under. 5. The appellant-company had entered into a non-compete agreement on 29th April, 2009 with the promoter of the company, wherein the promoters had agreed not to operate and carry on the business

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)

disallowed the claim for allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. The factual backgrounds leading to the above addition are as under. 5. The appellant-company had entered into a non-compete agreement on 29th April, 2009 with the promoter of the company, wherein the promoters had agreed not to operate and carry on the business