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.

19 results for “disallowance”+ Section 199(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai939Delhi877Bangalore281Kolkata234Chennai224Ahmedabad207Jaipur115Hyderabad111Chandigarh65Pune62Rajkot60Indore55Raipur51Lucknow43Cuttack40Calcutta38Jodhpur29Allahabad24Nagpur22Karnataka21Cochin19Visakhapatnam18Surat18Telangana7Agra7Amritsar6Rajasthan4SC4Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana3Guwahati2Orissa1Patna1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 153A27Section 143(3)24Section 8021Section 139(1)14Addition to Income13Section 26311Disallowance9Section 408Section 11(2)8Deduction

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: \nShri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowances, which was made\nin the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act\ndated 20.03.2015.\n6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\ndismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the\nassessment made pursuant to notice u/s. 153A of the Act.\n7. Being aggrieved, the appellant

8
Section 1327
Search & Seizure5

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or that the ground became

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

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES M&M) CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 537/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

1 Gallonage fee 54,83,87,000 2 License fee 5,75,00,000 3 Shop Rental (Kist) 199,71,00,000 4 Surcharge on Sales Tax 551,61,01,115 7. The first ground is with regard to disallowance of gallonage fee expenses u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. The Ld. AR contended that gallonage fee and license

M/S.KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(M&M) CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 536/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

1 Gallonage fee 54,83,87,000 2 License fee 5,75,00,000 3 Shop Rental (Kist) 199,71,00,000 4 Surcharge on Sales Tax 551,61,01,115 7. The first ground is with regard to disallowance of gallonage fee expenses u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. The Ld. AR contended that gallonage fee and license

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 244A

disallowed with reference to s. 244A r/ws. 240, distinguishing the assessee’s reliance on Sanvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC). 3. Of the three grounds raised by the assessee before us, Gd. 1 pertains to the applicability of s. 244A(3) of the Act; Gd. 2 relates to the applicability

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

199/- Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 3304990/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.11907199/- Total Rs.15212189/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 1500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.15210689/- A.Y. 2012-13 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale Quantity

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

199/- Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 3304990/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.11907199/- Total Rs.15212189/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 1500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.15210689/- A.Y. 2012-13 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale Quantity

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 78/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199Section 263Section 69Section 69C

199 r.w.r. 37BA of the Rules, the credit of TDS can be claimed only in the year to which the corresponding income is taxable. The amount of TDS on corresponding interest income of Rs. 64,17,463/-belong to assessment year 2017-18 whereas TDS was claimed in the year under consideration which was allowed by the AO without conducting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 562/COCH/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 143(3)Section 250

disallowance of exemption against accumulation of income under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, all the grounds are taken together. The appellant through an application in Form 10 submitted before the assessing authority with respect to the assessment year 2018-19, pursuant to a resolution passed by the trustees, has sought for accumulation

PUNNAYURKULAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO P 417,PUNNAYURKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

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

ITA 446/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Punnayurkulam Service Cooperative .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. P417, Punnayurkulam, Thrissur. [Pan: Aacap 6129 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1, Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Its Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2023-24 Was Filed On 31/12/2020 Declaring Nil Income After

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 199(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

1) of the Act placing reliance on the provision of section 80AC of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who while confirming the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P, however, deleted the addition made on account of adding back of the provisions. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

SRI.KRISHNAN ACHARY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 10Section 148

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2008-09, the return of income was filed on 29/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs.3,03,310/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala