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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 209clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi342Mumbai260Chennai132Bangalore68Jaipur60Hyderabad55Chandigarh35Ahmedabad31Raipur30Indore27Kolkata22Pune21Lucknow20Allahabad16SC14Cuttack13Nagpur11Surat11Rajkot7Jodhpur6Cochin5Ranchi5Varanasi4Panaji3Guwahati3Dehradun3Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 32(1)(iia)3Section 143(3)3Section 80P3Section 80P(2)(d)3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 2(14)(iii)2Depreciation2

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

disallowed the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.59,000/- in respect of the assets acquired in preceding assessment year i.e., A.Y. 2013- 2014 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the basis of following observation:- “2. During the year assessee had made addition of Rs.43181/- for plant and machinery and Rs.12,82,865/- in respect of mould

GURUVAYUR VYAPARI VYAVASAYI CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,GURUVAYUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

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

Capital Gains2
ITA 187/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Guruvayur Vyapari Vyavasayi Co-Op. .......... Applicant Society Ltd. Vyapari Bhavan, Inner Ring Road Guruvayur, Thrissur 680101 [Pan: Aacag0215C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Guruvayur Applicant By: Shri Ramdas, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.03.2025

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 239Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

209/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P in respect of interest received from District Co-operative Bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

disallowing the loss arising from the business of card division of Rs. 7,50,927/- and proceeded to hold that the same is to be set off against other income. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the CIT(A). P.C. Jose 10. Being aggrieved with that part of the order of the CIT(A), which

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

ITA 71/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnan Unny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250

disallowance of depreciation that the same is no more admissible as it ought to have been claimed in the year of acquisition of the fixed asset(s) only. 6. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument in the light of the corresponding statutory provision, i.e. s. 43(6)(b) of the Act, which reads as under

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 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 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

disallowing the claim for exemption of capital gains on sale of agricultural land in survey No. 143/34, Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the appellant received a total consideration of Rs. 5,09,24,950/- on sale of following agricultural