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 244aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai292Delhi222Bangalore90Ahmedabad48Jaipur34Cochin30Kolkata29Chennai18Allahabad16Chandigarh12Pune9Hyderabad9Indore7Visakhapatnam5Rajkot5Lucknow5Patna3Dehradun2Karnataka2Raipur2Cuttack2Ranchi2Amritsar1Jodhpur1Telangana1SC1Panaji1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 244A20Addition to Income17Exemption15Section 15414Section 220(2)12Disallowance10Section 143(3)9Section 10B7Section 2507Section 271(1)(c)

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

disallowance of entire Rs 8,12,12,725 under section 40(a)(i), when the actual expense incurred by the Appellant is only Rs 4,06,06,362. The DCIT and DRP has failed to consider the fact that 50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

7
Rectification u/s 1547
Section 144C(5)6

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

disallowance of entire Rs 8,12,12,725 under section 40(a)(i), when the actual expense incurred by the Appellant is only Rs 4,06,06,362. The DCIT and DRP has failed to consider the fact that 50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section (5) is given by the AO and if such order has been received before the 1st day of June 2016, then the Assessing officer shall give effect to such order on or before 31/03/2017. Thus, the ld. AO was required to give interest as provided u/s. 244A(1A) r.w.s.153(7) and ld. CIT(A) has merely directed

SRI.VINU SELVARAJ M/S. RADHAS TEXTILES,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is a partly allowed for statistical

ITA 611/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(3)Section 6D

244A 1,330 Not disclosed 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the adhoc disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act, which is para materia as that of section 10B of the Act, made by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, the learned JCIT

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act, which is para materia as that of section 10B of the Act, made by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, the learned JCIT

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/COCH/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2007-08 The South Indian Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Head Office, Mission Quarters, T.B. Road, Thrissur. [Pan: Aabct 0022 F] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 244A

disallowances. On appeal before CIT(A)vide order dated 04/12/2013 granted partial relief. On further appeal to the ITAT in ITA No.181/Coch/2014 dt. 24/12/2014, the assessment order was modified at a total income of Rs. 144,91,03,583/-. While passing modification order vide order dated 06/07/2020, the AO had not granted interest u/s. 244A

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 244A

Section 244A(3) makes it clear that the same envisages an order for the relevant year, i.e., of the refund. The order by the Hon'ble High Court in the instant case is under it’s appellate jurisdiction, invoked by the assessee in respect of its assessment of AY 2004-05. The same stands disallowed

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 679/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, 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: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 92C

disallowing the weighted deduction of Rs. 35,28,65,197/- of R&D Revenue Expense and Rs. 1,40,38,500/- of R&D Capital Expense as claimed by the Appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred by it for its in-house R&D facility. b. The Ld. AO/DRP failed to appreciate that

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 43/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 45/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 41/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 40A(2). Hence, there was no shifting of profits in favour of sister concerns for their benefit as the transfer price was based on ultimate export price obtaining for respective grade(s) which therefore, constituted ALP on the date of relevant export contract. I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 8.7 It cannot stand to reason that the sale price of cashew