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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi704Mumbai698Chennai311Bangalore190Kolkata145Ahmedabad139Jaipur119Hyderabad77Chandigarh71Pune65Raipur45Surat34Indore31Cuttack21Visakhapatnam20Allahabad18Guwahati15Lucknow14Karnataka12Kerala11Telangana9Ranchi9Amritsar9SC8Cochin8Jodhpur6Agra6Nagpur6Rajkot5Dehradun3Rajasthan3Patna3Punjab & Haryana2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 234B11Section 14A8Section 1547Section 2637Addition to Income6Section 36(1)(viia)5Section 69C5Disallowance5Section 40B4Section 143(3)

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 307/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

section 14A is only to the extent of ITA Nos.307-308/Coch/2017. 5 M/s.Kerala Ayurveda Limited. disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.4,000 from investment in shares of Canara

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

4
Deduction3
TDS2
ITA 308/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
18 Sept 2018
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

section 14A is only to the extent of ITA Nos.307-308/Coch/2017. 5 M/s.Kerala Ayurveda Limited. disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.4,000 from investment in shares of Canara

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 132/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 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 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.10.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 207Section 207(2)Section 234BSection 234ESection 243BSection 37Section 37(1)

disallowance of Rs. 5,04,42,154/- u/s. 37 and 68 of the Act. While completing the assessment the AO had not charged interest u/s. 234B of the Act and determined the tax liability. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act dated 26.08.2019 proposing to levy interest u/s. 234B of the Act. In response to the notice

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

207/-. The assessee further submitted that further details of declaration filed in form 15G/15H and the name of the depositors and the full details could not be collected in order to give explanations to the proposal because of the technical error in the system. 3. In respect of the deduction claimed for the provision made for the bad and doubtful

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

MUTHOOT BANKERS,PERUMBAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 49/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 244ASection 40B

207). However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and held that interst expenditure was not incurred in relation to income, therefore, disallowed Rs.5,00,000/- on account of interest paid to partners by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.37,410/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein

ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. SHRI GOPINATH MUTHUKAD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection

ITA 349/COCH/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80ASection 80R

disallowing the claim for certain expenditure raised by the I.T.A. No.349/Coch/2009 & C.O. No.32/Coch/2009 assessee.llant. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee already filed an appeal against the above order. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income tax, Calicut by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income tax Act, set aside the assessment order stating that the order passed

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

section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment with the following direction: “Hence, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 19/05/2021 is set aside to the Assessing Officer to consider the below matter: 1) For AY 2018-19 assessee had declared Rs.80,70,207/- as the interest Income (Income from other Source) in the return