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.

52 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(7)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,157Delhi1,117Bangalore443Pune431Chennai426Kolkata399Ahmedabad328Hyderabad210Jaipur198Raipur136Chandigarh103Surat97Indore96Amritsar86Visakhapatnam84Cuttack55Cochin52Nagpur40Rajkot39Lucknow35Allahabad26Jodhpur23Agra23Karnataka16Guwahati13SC10Patna8Varanasi7Ranchi7Calcutta5Dehradun5Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Panaji2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 4039Addition to Income31Section 26330Disallowance29Deduction23Section 143(3)22Section 40A(3)20Section 19520Exemption14Section 80P

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

disallowed the claim for the technical reason of the assessee having not filed a revised return, the assessee cannot be disabled from raising the very same claim before the appellate authorities as has been held in NTPC Ltd.'s case (supra). Following NTPC Ltd.'s case (supra) it has also to be found that the necessary facts for claiming

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 201(1)10
Section 9(1)(vii)10
ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

disallowed the claim for the technical reason of the assessee having not filed a revised return, the assessee cannot be disabled from raising the very same claim before the appellate authorities as has been held in NTPC Ltd.'s case (supra). Following NTPC Ltd.'s case (supra) it has also to be found that the necessary facts for claiming

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)

b) is correct, and therefore, the disallowance made on this account is deleted. The appeal is allowed. The order under reference on the similar facts is to uphold the principle of consistency, which was the intention for Faceless Procedure. 6. For the above and other reasons to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that justice

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

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)

7. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The provisions of section 40A(2) reads as follows – Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. 40A. (1) ** (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been

M/S.ST.GEORGE MOTORS,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 264/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri. M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3) 92760 Cash payment 3. Audit fee 45000 TDS not deducted 4. Remuneration paid to 136937 Not working Mrs.Neethu partner 5. Remuneration paid to working 705754 40(b)(ii) & partner 40(b)(v) 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition totaling to Rs.11

CANON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 547/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ramesh John Cherian
Section 40ASection 40A(3)

B. The CIT (A) has merely reproduced the order of the assessing authority mechanically and without application of mind. The CIT (A) was duty bound to apply his mind independently and record reasons substantiating his Page 2 of 7 order. Hence the order of the CIT (A) impugned herein is unsustainable and liable to be set aside

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

7. We have carefully gone through the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Parliament by Finance Act, 2012 incorporated second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2013. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing second proviso as it is inserted by Finance Act, 2012 below: “Provided further

SRI.C.SHAJI,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TRIVNDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Dr.Pradeep K.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

7 Sri.C.Shaji. 11. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee is not in agreement with the Assessing Officer and his explanation in this regard is that an amount of Rs.2,81,63,141 has been added to the total

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

In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mina Wood Industries .......... Appellant Iii/656 B, Kallur, Matannur Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagmf2716D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -3, Kannur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

7. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the is u/s. 40A(3) of the Act being payment made to KSEB in cash towards electricity charges. The provisions of section 40A(3) is not absolute. Provisions of section 40 A(3) cannot be read in isolation but should be read

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE D CIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 462/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 3Section 3(1)Section 40

B of section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, finding of the Pr. CT that the appellant is the only State PSU is also factually erroneous and needs to be set aside/struck down being not sustainable in law. 3. The Pr. CIT has erred in law in directing the assessing officer to make a disallowance

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

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

ITA 13/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

7,38,310/-. The assessment was completed vide order dated 12/12/2011 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In the assessment completed, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.8,67,767/- being excessive interest paid to related party’s concerns. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “During the year, the assessee incurred an expenditure

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

40A(3), including interest, rent, salary and other business expense where payment in cash exceeding Rs.20,000 and not covered by Rule 6DD. iv. disallowance of interest and other sums under section 40(a)(i), if any, if section 195 is violated. v. disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), after due examination (due care is to be taken

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

40A(3), including interest, rent, salary and other business expense where payment in cash exceeding Rs.20,000 and not covered by Rule 6DD. iv. disallowance of interest and other sums under section 40(a)(i), if any, if section 195 is violated. v. disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), after due examination (due care is to be taken

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

40A(3), including interest, rent, salary and other business expense where payment in cash exceeding Rs.20,000 and not covered by Rule 6DD. iv. disallowance of interest and other sums under section 40(a)(i), if any, if section 195 is violated. v. disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), after due examination (due care is to be taken