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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi871Mumbai707Kolkata244Chennai224Ahmedabad173Hyderabad138Bangalore123Jaipur85Pune84Amritsar73Chandigarh59Indore56Raipur56Visakhapatnam54Surat48Cuttack43Rajkot37Lucknow29Guwahati28Allahabad24Agra21Nagpur19Panaji10Patna9Jodhpur9Dehradun8Cochin8Varanasi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Karnataka3SC1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income8Disallowance7Section 80P(2)(d)6Section 80P6Deduction5Section 32(1)4Business Income4Natural Justice3Section 80P(2)(a)2Section 139(1)

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR
Section 40

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

2
Section 1482
Section 2502
ITA 220/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR
Section 40

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

KERALA GAZETTED OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. T-424,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 203/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkerala Gazetted Officers The Income Tax Officer Co-Op. Society Ltd. Ward - 2(1), Trivandrum Vazhuthakkdu, Thycaud Post Vs. Trivandrum 695014 [Pan: Aacak6865C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 46ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

46A, but only advancement of arguments in support of the grounds of appeal. 6) Without prejudice to the appellant ought claim that it is not additional evidence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to have appreciated that submissions were in the nature of application for admissions of details and identity of persons, with explanation as to what prevented the appellant

THE ITO,COR.WD-1, KOCHI vs. BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LIMITED, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 500/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 32(1)

section 32(1). I.T.A. Nos.500&501/Coch/2018 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is not justified to delete the disallowance of claim of bad debts. The CIT(A) has accepted additional evidence during the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining the additional evidence which is against Rule 46A

MELATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-4, TIRUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmelattur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Melttur P.O. Ward - 4, Tirur Vs. Malapuram 679326 [Pan: Aacam8880H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69Section 80P

46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. The assessee, on the other hand, claims that both the foregoing disallowances/ additions could not have been made in its hands once it is entitled for section

THE OORAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, TIRUR

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

ITA 753/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.753/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Oorakam Service Cooperative The Income Tax Officer, Bank Limited Vs. Ward-2(1), Oorakam P.O., Thrissur. Malappuram 676519 Kerala [Pan: Aadat8574A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) instead of 80P(2)(a)(i) due to a computer/clerical error, disallowance of contingencies expenses amounting to Rs. 28,79,142/- and CIT(A)’s refusal to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, IDUKKI vs. MARAYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 2022, IDUKKI

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

ITA 673/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant First Floor, Mahima Owers, Temple Bypass Road, Thodupuzha, Idukki 685585 [Pan: Aacam0362Q] Vs. Marayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Respondent Munnar-Udumalpet Road, Marayoor Keezhanthoor, Iddukki 685620 Appellant By: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act. The AO also made addition on loans and advances of Rs. 27,86,07,868/- as the assessee had failed to furnish details of the loans and advances with documentary evidences. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,03,26,967/- claimed under the head ‘any other amount allowable’ as the assessee failed

HUBSPIRE,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 781/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hubspire .......... Appellant H2/2041, St. Benedict Extention Road Ernakulam North, Kochi 682018 [Pan: Aahfh3670C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148A

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2020-21. Based on the information that the appellant was in receipt of professional fees and technical services of Rs. 22,60,000/- from Getit Communications Pvt. 2 Hubspire Ltd., the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice