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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Kolkata407Delhi394Chennai205Bangalore193Ahmedabad60Hyderabad42Indore36Jaipur35Raipur33Rajkot30Pune16Karnataka15Nagpur15Amritsar14Cuttack13Cochin13Surat13Visakhapatnam12Panaji12Chandigarh11Lucknow10Allahabad9Guwahati9Ranchi7Kerala7Patna6Dehradun4Calcutta4Jodhpur3Agra3SC3Jabalpur1Gauhati1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4025Section 80P12Deduction12Section 194C11Section 143(3)10TDS10Addition to Income10Section 109Section 698Disallowance

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

194C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,01,35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court

7
Section 566
Section 80P(2)(a)4

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

194C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,01,35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

194C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,01,35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

ITA 600/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

194C is not backed by any supporting evidence/finding, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.2,47,67,931/- u/s.40(a)(ia) is deleted. 5.9 As regards, Ground No.5 of the appellant that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed expenditure against legal charges for not effecting T DS u/s.194C, I find no reason to interfere with the disallowance made

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

ITA 37/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P deduction claim in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to verify all necessary facts, in consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Our attention is next invited to the learned lower authorities action making sec.40(a)(ia) read with Rule 194C and sec.36(i)(viia) disallowance(s) assessment year-wise, respectively. There would

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

ITA 36/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P deduction claim in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to verify all necessary facts, in consequential computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Our attention is next invited to the learned lower authorities action making sec.40(a)(ia) read with Rule 194C and sec.36(i)(viia) disallowance(s) assessment year-wise, respectively. There would

VISWANATHA SHENOY,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 34/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Nithyananda
Section 194CSection 40

section 194C of Page 2 of 4 the Act and therefore the AO had issued a notice proposing to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that he has obtained the declaration in form 15-I as per Rule 29D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and by mistakenly the said forms were

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of Rs. 1,66,325/-u/s. 40(ia) against advertising payments, without looking into the law and facts of the case. TDS is applicable to payments to contractors, only when the payments are made in pursuance of a contract (Sec. 194C). In the present case, there is no such contract between the assessee Trust and advertising agencies. The advertisements

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account