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.

34 results for “disallowance”+ Section 246(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai641Delhi467Bangalore184Chennai140Kolkata139Jaipur105Ahmedabad72Chandigarh60Pune49Raipur46Indore35Cochin34Hyderabad32Lucknow31Nagpur20Cuttack20Surat19SC14Karnataka14Visakhapatnam14Rajkot13Amritsar9Jodhpur8Agra6Varanasi5Allahabad5Telangana4Patna4Panaji2Guwahati2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income23Section 143(1)20Section 143(3)16Exemption16Section 80P14Section 4013Section 15410Deduction10Section 80P(2)(d)9Section 2(24)(vi)

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

246 in the Act by the Finance Act, 2022, the appellate authority for 143(1) order is also likely to be different as now such cases are largely adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) unlike earlier. 5.2.4 In the context of this issue, I would also like to place reliance upon two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunals

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 488
Capital Gains8

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

246 in the Act by the Finance Act, 2022, the appellate authority for 143(1) order is also likely to be different as now such cases are largely adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) unlike earlier. 5.2.4 In the context of this issue, I would also like to place reliance upon two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunals

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

246, relevant portion of which is extracted as below: - “7. The first contention raised before us was that under Section 194A, an individual is excluded from the liability to deduct tax and that therefore, disallowance is without jurisdiction. In order to answer this contention, reference to Section 194A(1

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

246, relevant portion of which is extracted as below: - “7. The first contention raised before us was that under Section 194A, an individual is excluded from the liability to deduct tax and that therefore, disallowance is without jurisdiction. In order to answer this contention, reference to Section 194A(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

246, relevant portion of which is extracted as below: - “7. The first contention raised before us was that under Section 194A, an individual is excluded from the liability to deduct tax and that therefore, disallowance is without jurisdiction. In order to answer this contention, reference to Section 194A(1

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271 (1) (c). ix) The various courts including the apex court has held in various cases that there cannot be a levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of an addition based on estimate and disallowance. In the appellant's case it is only a levy of penalty made on estimate/disallowance and hence requires to squashed

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

M/S.JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ALUVA

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

ITA 128/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that, if the assessee is aggrieved by an assessment made under section 143(3), whether the same is made following the procedure prescribed under section 143 or following the procedure prescribed under section 144B, he is entitled to file an appeal against the said assessment. Merely because the assessee failed to file

JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ALUVA

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

ITA 303/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that, if the assessee is aggrieved by an assessment made under section 143(3), whether the same is made following the procedure prescribed under section 143 or following the procedure prescribed under section 144B, he is entitled to file an appeal against the said assessment. Merely because the assessee failed to file

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC , KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

ITA 241/COCH/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

1) disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act was not permissible. The disallowance of the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act in the intimation is not in accordance with law and hence a mistake apparent on the records. When the CPC made a prima facie adjustment in the intimation disallowing partially the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act, the assessee

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

ITA 246/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

1) disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act was not permissible. The disallowance of the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act in the intimation is not in accordance with law and hence a mistake apparent on the records. When the CPC made a prima facie adjustment in the intimation disallowing partially the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act, the assessee

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

ITA 245/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

1) disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act was not permissible. The disallowance of the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act in the intimation is not in accordance with law and hence a mistake apparent on the records. When the CPC made a prima facie adjustment in the intimation disallowing partially the claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act, the assessee

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

1) was a possible view. There are also conflicting decisions on the point and the majority of the same is in favour of the appellant and supports the order dated 31.03.2008. Therefore, it was not within the powers of the assessing authority to vary the decision in a proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, which is intended only