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.

35 results for “disallowance”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai875Delhi679Bangalore253Kolkata199Chennai197Ahmedabad129Jaipur121Hyderabad106Pune79Karnataka66Indore44Chandigarh43Calcutta36Cochin35Raipur30Surat29Cuttack24Rajkot24Lucknow19Visakhapatnam18SC14Telangana14Nagpur13Guwahati10Jodhpur9Amritsar7Allahabad6Kerala6Patna5Agra5Varanasi4Dehradun3Jabalpur3Ranchi2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26329Section 14A23Addition to Income19Exemption17Section 2(15)16Disallowance15Deduction14Section 4013Section 80P11Section 143(3)

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

disallowed by the CIT(A) and department had accepted the same. It is well settled that department having accepted the CIT(A)'s order for earlier years cannot agitate the issue for the current assessment years, unless department is able to prove that for earlier years CIT(A) orders were accepted on account of low tax effect. Therefore

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 143(1)10
Section 43B8
21 Mar 2019
AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

disallowed by the CIT(A) and department had accepted the same. It is well settled that department having accepted the CIT(A)'s order for earlier years cannot agitate the issue for the current assessment years, unless department is able to prove that for earlier years CIT(A) orders were accepted on account of low tax effect. Therefore

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 563/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

disallowance made to that extent was deleted. Being so, the assessee cannot have any grievance against this finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to exemption u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is misconstrued. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. The final ground

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 93/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

disallowance made to that extent was deleted. Being so, the assessee cannot have any grievance against this finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to exemption u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is misconstrued. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. The final ground

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 47/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

disallowance made to that extent was deleted. Being so, the assessee cannot have any grievance against this finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to exemption u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is misconstrued. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. The final ground

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 141/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

disallowance made to that extent was deleted. Being so, the assessee cannot have any grievance against this finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to exemption u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is misconstrued. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. The final ground

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 400/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

disallowance made to that extent was deleted. Being so, the assessee cannot have any grievance against this finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to exemption u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is misconstrued. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. The final ground

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

264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

SHRI. MURALEEDHARAN KALATHIL,COCHIN vs. THE ADIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J M Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of Rs.28,86,264 u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act for the reason that the assessee has not paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the prescribed due date under the respective Acts. 2 ITA No.116/Coch/2021. Sri.Muraleedharan Kalathil. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

disallowed after due verification of amount involved in it. 2) To ascertain the tax liability in respect of provision for frauds after verifying the facts that the amount stated against provision towards NPA/Write off amounting to Rs.217.89 crores includes provision for fraud amounting to Rs.3,00,57,799/-. ITA Nos.84/Coch/2021 & CSB Bank Ltd., Thrissur Page 6 of 15 2.6 Regarding

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 563/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

disallowed after due verification of amount involved in it. 2) To ascertain the tax liability in respect of provision for frauds after verifying the facts that the amount stated against provision towards NPA/Write off amounting to Rs.217.89 crores includes provision for fraud amounting to Rs.3,00,57,799/-. ITA Nos.84/Coch/2021 & CSB Bank Ltd., Thrissur Page 6 of 15 2.6 Regarding

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

section 143(2) of the Act was duly served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment by making a disallowance of Rs.72,12,446/- towards employees’ contribution to PF/ESI after the due date vide order dated 24.12.2018. The AO subsequently issued a notice u/s.154 proposing to rectify the mistake with regard to the disallowance of interest on delayed remittance

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

M/S. MAVOOR TRADE LINKS,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 719/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)

264/- and adding back the same to the total income. One of the additions made in the scrutiny assessment was with regard to proportionate disallowance of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had purchased land for a sum of Rs. 1 crore out of the OD account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer

DHNALAXMI BANK LIMITED,TRICHUR vs. THE PR CIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

section 263 and issued a notice as to why the entire amount computed as disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be disallowed. The assessee submitted that it is a well settled position in law as per the decision of Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank, 240 ITR 355 (SC) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

264 and that the AO did not examine the claim of the assessee for an exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

264 and that the AO did not examine the claim of the assessee for an exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272A(3)Section 272A(4)

disallowance. However, the assessee claimed that they can claim depreciation as application of income upto and including the assessment year 2014-15 on the basis of section 11(6) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 01-04-2015 which was not acceptable by the CIT(E). Before the CIT(E), the assessee placed reliance on section

M/S.VENNALA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the CIT(A) for assessment year under consideration

ITA 129/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 154Section 19Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 80P

264 ITR 36/132 Taxman 284 (Ker.). In this case before us also, admittedly, the taxpayers are registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies' Act and no approval was obtained from the RBI for carrying out the banking activities. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the taxpayers have to be treated as primary agricultural cooperative societies within the meaning of section

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 142/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 135Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

264 ITR 545) wherein depreciation of securities was held as stock-in-trade. He also stated that the same was claimed in accordance with AS 13 concerning accounting of investments. 4. The Assessing Officer opined that advance share investment/ share application money cannot assume the character of stock-in-trade. The assessee countered the views of Assessing Officer by stating