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.

98 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,528Mumbai1,469Chennai654Kolkata648Pune596Bangalore537Ahmedabad410Hyderabad245Jaipur240Raipur145Chandigarh137Surat137Indore129Visakhapatnam117Amritsar117Cuttack106Cochin98Rajkot66Nagpur60Lucknow46Agra36Karnataka31Jodhpur27Allahabad27Dehradun21Guwahati20Patna19Ranchi13SC12Varanasi9Calcutta8Jabalpur6Telangana4Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1J&K1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)83Section 80P67Disallowance63Section 4061Section 143(3)60Addition to Income54Deduction49Section 26343Section 19520Exemption

SRI.VINU SELVARAJ M/S. RADHAS TEXTILES,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is a partly allowed for statistical

ITA 611/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(3)Section 6D

40A(2) in excess of market value and disallowed 50% of such expenditure. Accordingly salary expenditure was disallowed to the extent of Rs.5.40 lakhs. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of 50% of such expenses by invoking the provisions of section

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5

19
TDS17
Section 25016

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

ITA 328/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

40A(2)(a) as under:- "Under the CBDT Circular No. 6-P, dated 6th July, 1968 it is stated that no disallowance is to be made under section

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

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

The appeals are allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Sept 2024AY 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)

2 The Appellant humbly submits that the payments under reference, are made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in cash in excess of Rs. 10000 could not be treated as in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, as the KSEB is a Government Department under Kerala Government headed by a Minister. The appellant humbly submit that

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Rs.1,50,03,709/- by observing as follows: 8 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 1) The Department of Animal husbandry, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has clarified that crushed bones is a matter within the jurisdiction of animal husbandry and agriculture. 2) A narrow interpretation that excludes crushed bone, that may merely be crushed and thereby retaining their

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Rs.1,50,03,709/- by observing as follows: 8 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 1) The Department of Animal husbandry, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has clarified that crushed bones is a matter within the jurisdiction of animal husbandry and agriculture. 2) A narrow interpretation that excludes crushed bone, that may merely be crushed and thereby retaining their

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 567/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

40A(9) of the Act, the claim of deduction made for any payment to superannuation fund must be in accordance with section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has not been able to prove that it is a recognized provident fund or an approved gratuity fund as mentioned in section

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 566/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

40A(9) of the Act, the claim of deduction made for any payment to superannuation fund must be in accordance with section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has not been able to prove that it is a recognized provident fund or an approved gratuity fund as mentioned in section

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 164/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36Section 61Section 80P

2. The CIT (A) has not considered the below points raised by the appellant before passing the order under section 250. "As per Circular No. 37/2016, the board has accepted the settled position that the disallowances made under section 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A

M/S.EMPEE CREDIT CORPORATION,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 12/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

disallowed a sum of Rs.3,71,890/- by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a). The assessee- firm had a total

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. The aforesaid disallowance was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) as the appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid disallowance was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 24/03/2025, impugned by way of present appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 579/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch/ 2018. For our reasoning mentioned in paragraph 5.5 (supra), we decide this ground against the assessee. 12. As regards ground No.2, the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.2.1 The Appellant had paid Rs.2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 581/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch/ 2018. For our reasoning mentioned in paragraph 5.5 (supra), we decide this ground against the assessee. 12. As regards ground No.2, the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.2.1 The Appellant had paid Rs.2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 580/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch/ 2018. For our reasoning mentioned in paragraph 5.5 (supra), we decide this ground against the assessee. 12. As regards ground No.2, the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.2.1 The Appellant had paid Rs.2

M/S.MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,COCHIN vs. THE DY DIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

ITA 127/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)Section 47A(7)

40A(7) of the I T Act. Therefore, the CIT has rightly disallowed the same in his order passed under section 263 of the I T Act. However, the further question is whether the CIT is right in invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act. To understand this issue, provisions of section 11(4), 2