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.

153 results for “disallowance”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,806Delhi3,366Chennai1,047Bangalore821Ahmedabad754Hyderabad706Jaipur661Kolkata581Pune432Chandigarh330Indore268Raipur263Surat236Rajkot226Cochin153Amritsar152Visakhapatnam151Nagpur143Lucknow130SC104Jodhpur81Cuttack79Allahabad68Guwahati66Agra63Ranchi62Patna60Panaji58Dehradun39Jabalpur26Varanasi11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 250121Section 4043Section 143(3)29Disallowance28Deduction26Addition to Income20Section 26316Section 80P15Section 271(1)(c)14Section 80G

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Incomeunder the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...
12
Reassessment9
Section 117

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY P. LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 27/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Rohini Thampy, CA
Section 10Section 10(30)Section 30Section 801ASection 80I

section 10(30) are very specific and Page 4 of 17 clear on the nature of benefit to be granted to the assessee on subsidy receipts. It was also observed that there was no ambiguity in the intention of the Government in not notifying the subsidy in question that the same was not eligible for exemption u/s.10(30

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

disallowance of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 18. With a view to mitigate this hardship, Section 40(a)(ia) was amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the provision so amended read as under:— "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

30 of EPF&MP Act is also pointed out to argue that whether it be the contribution of the employer or the employee, it is the liability of the employer and, hence, the employer's and employee's contribution cannot be treated differently insofar as the deductions permissible under Section 36 (1) (va) 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

ITA 563/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Act and Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules 1961 [for short ‘the IT Rules’], disallowance was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation/submissions of the Assessee and proceeded to disallow INR.72,30

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

disallowed the 30% of the interest payments and consequently levied the penalty u/s. 270A(1) of the Act as underreporting. As already stated, the word used in section

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

Section 92B of the Act. We also reject the contention of the Assessee that continuing debit balance of short term advances did not constitute an ‘International Transaction’. Therefore, Ground No. 4.1 raised by the Assessee is dismissed. 5.3. During the assessment proceedings the TPO noted that the Assessee was providing loans and advances to its AEs and was not charging

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD vs. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, PALAKKAD

ITA 798/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.N.R.Neelakandan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR &
Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 40Section 40a

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance (s) of the Act on the ground that the assessee; a co-operative bank, had not deducted any TDS on the interest payment made to its members. We reiterate that the assessment year before us for A.Y. 2015-2016. And that the corresponding statutory provision herein, i.e., sec.194A(3)(v) has witnessed an amendment vide

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

ITA 918/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowance of expenditure incurred on replacement of Rotary Calciner was restored to the file of the AO in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. 293 ITR 201. The relevant part of the findings of Tribunal is as follows: “7. The assessee has taken one more ground

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 252/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

disallowance /addition amounting to Rs.10,90,20,000/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 16.12.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under : “2.3. I considered both the views expressed. As per section 36(1)(vili) of the Act, what is to be considered is the profit derived from the eligible business computed under

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 251/COCH/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

disallowance /addition amounting to Rs.10,90,20,000/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 16.12.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under : “2.3. I considered both the views expressed. As per section 36(1)(vili) of the Act, what is to be considered is the profit derived from the eligible business computed under

M/S. K.K ABRAHAM AND COMPANY,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

ITA 853/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 29Section 30Section 40Section 5

30 to 43D. By virtue of Section 5 of the Act, that total income of any previous years includes all income from whatever source derived. For the purpose of Section 40(b) read with Explanation, there cannot be separate method of accounting for ascertaining the net profit and/or book profit. The said section nowhere provides that the net profit

M/S. K.K ABRAHAM AND COMPANY,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

ITA 854/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 29Section 30Section 40Section 5

30 to 43D. By virtue of Section 5 of the Act, that total income of any previous years includes all income from whatever source derived. For the purpose of Section 40(b) read with Explanation, there cannot be separate method of accounting for ascertaining the net profit and/or book profit. The said section nowhere provides that the net profit

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 219/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40A(3)

30,000.00 charges Rs.30,000 Total 6,55,650.00 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,55,650/- wrongly made by the assessing authority invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to accept and appreciate that the Ld. Assessing Authority