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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,695Delhi1,594Bangalore1,055Ahmedabad232Kolkata212Chennai181Jaipur143Hyderabad111Pune80Indore60Nagpur55Chandigarh38Allahabad38Surat36Lucknow33Rajkot29Agra23Karnataka20Ranchi18Dehradun17Raipur15Jodhpur12Patna11Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8Cochin7Cuttack6SC5Jabalpur4Panaji3Guwahati2Calcutta1Telangana1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234B14Section 15412Section 408Section 698Disallowance6Addition to Income6Section 142(1)5TDS5Section 1324Section 153C

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

disallowed proportionate interest expenses of INR.12,68,911/-. The DRP concurred with the Assessing Officer and rejected the objections raised by the Assessee. Before us it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that loans were granted on account of commercial expediency and out of interest free funds. However, we note that the Assessing Officer/DRP has returned concurrent finding that

4
Section 684
Unexplained Cash Credit4

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

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

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned as 21- 12-2014 instead of 21-2-2014. Vide demand notice dated 26-3-2015, the demand raised amounts to Rs.5,05,25,210/- However, as per our workings, the refund due amounts to Rs.31,65,41,606/- The above mentioned mistakes are apparent from