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.

734 results for “disallowance”+ Section 4(3)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,020Delhi7,741Chennai2,349Bangalore1,743Ahmedabad1,735Kolkata1,696Pune1,292Hyderabad1,261Jaipur1,150Cochin734Indore663Chandigarh659Surat652Raipur488Visakhapatnam462Rajkot447Nagpur370Lucknow327Amritsar287Cuttack243SC226Jodhpur206Panaji187Patna166Ranchi166Guwahati159Agra150Dehradun116Allahabad90Jabalpur84Varanasi28A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80P164Deduction65Section 143(1)(a)61Section 25050Disallowance48Section 143(3)46Section 139(1)30Section 80P(2)(a)29Section 143(1)28Section 80A

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 569/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80Section 80P

4) was\nout of harms way, all the appellants in the present case were\nentitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in Section\n80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving\nloans to their members which are not related to agriculture.\n8.\nThe Appellant prays that the deduction under section 80P be\nallowed and the income

MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO, W-3, KANNUR

The appeals are allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 734 · Page 1 of 37

...
28
Addition to Income24
Rectification u/s 1549
ITAT Cochin
12 Sept 2024
AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmina Wood Industries The Income Tax Officer Iii/656 B, Kallur Ward - 3, Kannur Mattannur Vs. Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagfm2716D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 40A(3)

disallowance under section 40A(3)of the Act is called for. It is settled view that the provisions of section 40A(3) may not be invoked and addition foisted, if the payee is identifiable and the expenses are genuine. Reliance is placed on the decisions contained in (a) Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Sing Charan Singh

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: \nShri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

3)", "Section 139(1)", "Section 80IA(4)", "Section 80A(5)", "Section 80AC", "Section 147", "Section 158B", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 143(1)", "Section 44AD", "Section 44AB"], "issues": "Whether a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) can be made for the first time in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, in cases

M/S.PUTHIYANGADI SERVICE CO-OP BANK,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 112/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Puthiyangadi Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Limited No.F1421 V. Ward 1(3), Alappuzha. Puthiyangadi Kozhikode – 673 021 Pan : Aacap0749C. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.43,81,435/-. The Revenue 2 Puthiyangadi SCB Ltd. further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high

M/S POYILOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 151/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2014-15 Poyiloor Service Co-Op.Bank The Income Tax Officer-2, Kannothumchal Ltd., Poyiloor Post, Kannur. Vs. Pin – 670002 Pan Aacap8990R Kannur - 670 006 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2 Poyiloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2. Suffice to say that we find during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(4

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 913/COCH/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from M/s. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs. Rs.12,75,20,483/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

TAVINJAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, WAYANAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 321/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthavinjal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Thalapuzha P.O. Ward - 1(4), Kalpetyta Vs Wayanad 670664 Wayanad 673122 [Pan: Aadat2035N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 80P(5)

disallowing assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim. 3. We find that there is no such condition in section 80A(5) regarding compliance of section 139(1)’s “due” date as the relevant condition stipulates to this effect came u/s.80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and afterwards. So far as the Revenue’s claim that section 80P(5) bars section 80P deduction in a belated

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

ITA 292/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

ITA 291/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

ITA 290/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KANNUR TOWN SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 126/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkannur Town Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer-1 Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kannur 670002 Kannothumchal [Pan: Aabak8385N] Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

THE THRIKKOVIL VATTOM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 476/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

3 read with 9 ITA No.476/Coch/2023. The Thrikkovilvattom Panchayath SCB Ltd. Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by Section 5(b) of the BR Act, 1949, which means accepting, for the purpose

KANNUR DISTRICT EX SERVICEMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 432/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2016-2017 Kannur District Ex-Servicemen Multipurpose V. The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Society Limited, Ward 1 & Tps Payangadi Rs Kannur. Kannur 670 303. Pan : Aaaak8922A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri George Thomas, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal, Ita.No.432/Coch/2023, For Assessment Year 2016-2017, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051675600(1) Dated 30.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

For Appellant: Shri George Thomas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

CLAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALTD.,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 777/COCH/2023[ AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Clappana Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited No.867 V. Ward 1, Alappuzha. Cp/Viii/410 & 411, Clappana Po Karunagappally, Kollam – 690 525 Pan : Aabac2747A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055921666(1) Dated 11.09.2023, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from a district co-operative bank amounting to Rs.57,15,277/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per 2 Clappana SCB Ltd. the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 478/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms.Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

4) of section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14 Therefore, when the definition of "co-operative bank" in section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 843/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 90P

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 842/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 90P

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAPPALLY vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 844/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 90P

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 195/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed assessee’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.53,79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating it as co-operative Thurayur SCB Limited. bank and also for the reason that the corresponding loans to the extent of 25% only had been advanced to agricultural sector, as the case may be. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 196/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed assessee’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.53,79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating it as co-operative Thurayur SCB Limited. bank and also for the reason that the corresponding loans to the extent of 25% only had been advanced to agricultural sector, as the case may be. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration