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.

28 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai623Delhi501Chennai234Bangalore154Jaipur136Hyderabad119Raipur107Kolkata101Ahmedabad84Pune62Surat58Indore37Chandigarh36Rajkot35Cochin28Lucknow25Visakhapatnam23Jodhpur22Nagpur20Cuttack19Amritsar19Panaji11SC10Ranchi9Patna9Dehradun8Guwahati8Agra6Jabalpur4Varanasi3Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33Section 2(15)16Section 4016Section 139(1)12TDS12Addition to Income11Section 10B10Deduction10Section 119Section 80P

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

201(1) of the Act held that in a case in which the deductee paid the tax no demand visualized u/s.201(1) of the Act should be enforced against the deductor, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) will be equally inapplicable in a case in which tax has not been deducted at source or after deduction has not been

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance9
Section 1488

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201

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

201 of the Act. Further, we find that the AO had not made addition for non-deduction of tax at source invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act perhaps for the reason that he liability had not crystallized during the year though not stated so specifically. Therefore, we remand this issue back to the file

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 77/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 75/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 74/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 76/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

201 1-12 on 14/10/2011 admitting a total income of Rs.12,29,649/-. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs.15,29,650/-. Subsequently, it was seen from the records that the assessee wrongly e-filed the return for A Y 2011-12 instead of A.Y 2010-11 ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer

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)

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 compliance, and accordingly dismissed the appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT

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 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

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, 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

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 410/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 409/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

ITA 918/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowance of expenditure incurred on replacement of Rotary Calciner was restored to the file of the AO in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. 293 ITR 201. The relevant part of the findings of Tribunal is as follows: “7. The assessee has taken one more ground

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.MFAR HOTELS & RESORTS LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 13/Coch/2015 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 335/Coch/15)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250

disallowed the claim treating it as capital expenditure relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the case of M/s Ballimal Naval Kishore (224 ITR 414 (SC) )and M/s Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (2931TR 201(SC) 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that