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.

158 results for “disallowance”+ Section 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,721Delhi1,452Surat510Bangalore481Chennai421Kolkata330Ahmedabad280Pune238Jaipur215Cochin158Hyderabad158Chandigarh138Indore86Raipur83Rajkot47Amritsar44Calcutta41Visakhapatnam40Lucknow39Karnataka38Guwahati31Nagpur20Panaji19Cuttack17SC16Jodhpur13Varanasi12Jabalpur11Agra10Telangana10Ranchi6Dehradun5Allahabad4Punjab & Haryana3Kerala3Patna2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 25092Section 143(3)52Section 14A44Section 37(1)30Section 12A30Addition to Income30Disallowance26Section 1125Section 26320Deduction

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 158 · Page 1 of 8

...
20
Section 80I16
Exemption14
ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 74/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 71/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 73/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 72/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 70/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 75/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 69/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 75,97,389/- under explanation to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was contrary to the provisions of Act and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the cases on the basis of which relief has been allowed by CIT(A), was actually in favour

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or that the ground became

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

1) wherein it was held that the onus to prove that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and investment in sister concerns, was on the assessee. The CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.I. Baby & Co. (254 ITR 248). The CIT(A) held that disallowance

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

1) wherein it was held that the onus to prove that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and investment in sister concerns, was on the assessee. The CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.I. Baby & Co. (254 ITR 248). The CIT(A) held that disallowance

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

1) wherein it was held that the onus to prove that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and investment in sister concerns, was on the assessee. The CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.I. Baby & Co. (254 ITR 248). The CIT(A) held that disallowance

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

1) wherein it was held that the onus to prove that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and investment in sister concerns, was on the assessee. The CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.I. Baby & Co. (254 ITR 248). The CIT(A) held that disallowance

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 366/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

THE ACIT, , KOCHI vs. M/S.FEDERAL BANK LTD, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 309/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

1)(a) provided that CIT(A) may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, the Assessing Officer shall thereupon proceed to make such fresh assessment and determine, where necessary

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 35/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

1)(a) provided that CIT(A) may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, the Assessing Officer shall thereupon proceed to make such fresh assessment and determine, where necessary