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 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,410Delhi951Chennai279Bangalore224Kolkata200Ahmedabad163Chandigarh148Pune131Jaipur130Indore124Surat89Lucknow62Raipur57Allahabad52Hyderabad39Amritsar37Cuttack37Panaji36Cochin34Rajkot32Ranchi28Telangana25Guwahati21Nagpur18Jodhpur17Agra14Karnataka12Varanasi12Visakhapatnam9SC6Patna6Jabalpur4Calcutta2Dehradun2Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 80P32Section 143(3)26Addition to Income25Section 15424Disallowance19Deduction12Section 26311Depreciation11Section 10B9Section 40

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing the certificate issued by the statutory authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. E. The CIT(Appeal) went wrong in finding that appellant is not eligible for deduction for the interest income received u/s 80P(2)(d) . The issues covered in favour of the appellant of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Principal

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 326
Section 8O6

ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.JOY ALUKKAS (INDIA) LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 151/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

section 253(2A) of the I.T. Act. 2. We shall first take the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.190/Coch/2015. The facts of the case are that the assessee carried on the business as jewelers and retail dealer of textile goods. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transaction with associate enterprise. Hence, a reference

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 190/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

section 253(2A) of the I.T. Act. 2. We shall first take the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.190/Coch/2015. The facts of the case are that the assessee carried on the business as jewelers and retail dealer of textile goods. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transaction with associate enterprise. Hence, a reference

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

253(2) from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram on 26/08/2019. Thus, there was delay of 49 day. Accordingly, it was prayed that it is only just and reasonable that the delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard on merits. 2.2 We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the Department. As seen from the records, both

THE ITO, WD-3, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. RANNY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 254/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos.253 & 254/Coch/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ranni Service Co-Operative Bank Ward-3, Thiruvalla. Ltd., No. 65, Ranni P.O., Pathnamthitta-689 672. [Pan:

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 32Section 80PSection 8O

section 154 of the Act proposing to assess the same was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2017. 3.1 In response to the above notice, the assessee submitted that the CIT, Kottayam had issued notice proposing to revise the assessment u/s. 263 for the relevant assessment year which included the mistake proposed to be rectified. It I.T.A. Nos. 253&254/Coch/2018 & C.O.Nos

THE ITO, WD-3, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. RANNY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 253/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos.253 & 254/Coch/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ranni Service Co-Operative Bank Ward-3, Thiruvalla. Ltd., No. 65, Ranni P.O., Pathnamthitta-689 672. [Pan:

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 32Section 80PSection 8O

section 154 of the Act proposing to assess the same was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2017. 3.1 In response to the above notice, the assessee submitted that the CIT, Kottayam had issued notice proposing to revise the assessment u/s. 263 for the relevant assessment year which included the mistake proposed to be rectified. It I.T.A. Nos. 253&254/Coch/2018 & C.O.Nos

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, 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: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

253. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was for bona fide reasons since the officer and staff were very busy in conducting surveys and also with time barring and year ending works and there is no willful negligence or lapses on the part of the Revenue in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal in time

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com