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.

30 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,600Delhi1,267Bangalore717Chennai489Kolkata448Jaipur184Ahmedabad152Hyderabad134Raipur124Pune101Surat82Karnataka56Chandigarh47Rajkot47Indore39Lucknow32Cochin30Amritsar27Visakhapatnam25Nagpur25Jodhpur22Cuttack21Panaji16Telangana16Ranchi11Dehradun10SC10Patna9Guwahati8Agra6Punjab & Haryana6Kerala5Jabalpur4Varanasi3Calcutta2Rajasthan2Allahabad2Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Section 4016Section 2(15)16TDS13Section 139(1)12Deduction12Addition to Income12Section 26311Section 10B10Disallowance

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 30 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 80P9
Section 119

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

1 SCC 368. Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are automatically attracts on failure of the assessee to deduct tax on the sum paid by him. In the light of the legal positions discussed supra, we are of the considered opinion that the AO had rightly made the addition u/s. 40(a)(i) following the Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings

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(1

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(1

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(1

LAKSHMI HOSPITAL,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), KOCHI

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

ITA 279/COCH/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

201/- and deduction under Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") of Rs.1,74,600/- was made resulting in taxable income of Rs.83,09,600/- and Assessing Officer levied tax accordingly. During the course of processing of the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the CPC disallowed

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. ITO,WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 653/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanichukulangara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanichukulangara, Alappuzha 688544 [Pan: Aacak2630D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Alappuzha Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

201/- under the head “income from business or profession” denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that no return of income was filed. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High

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

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowed. The assessee filed a reply stating that the impugned amount debited under finance cost is deductible under section 37(1) of the Act and is of compensatory nature. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (1993) 201

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 305/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate
Section 1Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

201(SC), where it has been categorically held that the assessing authority must have all these information at the time of completion of the assessment and thus the compliance under Sec.1 1(2) should be complied before the completion of the assessments. In the matter on hand, it has already been complied way before the completion of assessment. Page

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, 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

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