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.

44 results for “disallowance”+ Section 255(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai743Delhi684Bangalore241Chennai206Kolkata144Ahmedabad121Jaipur113Chandigarh90Raipur70Hyderabad69Pune65Cochin44Indore42Surat41Calcutta36Guwahati35Panaji34Karnataka27Allahabad22Rajkot22Amritsar18Visakhapatnam16Lucknow14Cuttack13Jodhpur12Nagpur11Telangana5Jabalpur5SC4Dehradun3Varanasi3Orissa2Ranchi2Agra2Patna2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 10B68Section 10A45Section 12A31Section 153C28Section 1124Section 143(3)20Deduction19Addition to Income19Disallowance17Section 153A

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 in the present Assessment Year. 22. In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23. Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 139(1)14
Exemption12

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 in the present Assessment Year. 22. In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23. Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

4 of 16 been paid during the previous year as held in Merlyn Shipping and Transports vs. Additional CIT [(2012) 16 ITR(Trib.) 1 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam)] affirmed in CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 642(All)]. 6. That the CIT (A) is unjustified in not accepting the judgements in the case of a. Assistant Commissioner

ZACHARIA VARUGHESE,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 5, KOTTAYAM

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 69

disallowed assessee's exemption claim of his interest income derived from "NRE" account under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act on the ground that he is a "resident" in the relevant previous year, or not?” 8. The ld. Third Member passed his order u/s. 255

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

255 to 261/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2012-13 M/s. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, KMCT Corporate Office, Calicut. Malabar Christian College Cross Road, Calicut-673 011. [PAN :AAATK 4733C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Narayanamurthy, CA Revenue by Shri Alok Mitra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2019

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

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)

255 CTR 63) wherein it was held that for the purpose of section 10B of the I.T. Act, 100% EOU is only the undertaking which is so approved by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 40 of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and not the undertaking having approved by Director STPI

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)

255 CTR 63) wherein it was held that for the purpose of section 10B of the I.T. Act, 100% EOU is only the undertaking which is so approved by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 40 of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and not the undertaking having approved by Director STPI

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

disallowing the MAT credit granted vide order dated 24/12/2010, the rectification order was passed on 11/02/2019 in the present case, which is beyond the statutory limitation period of 4 years. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the impugned order. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material

M/S. CLINIPACE CLINICAL RESEARCH P. LTD(FORMERLY PARAGON BIO MEDICAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 297/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 249/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. PARAGON BIOMEDICAL INDIA (P) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 334/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

255 CTR 63. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to deny the deduction claimed u/s. 10B was that the export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The export oriented