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.

215 results for “disallowance”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,838Delhi4,351Bangalore1,500Chennai1,248Ahmedabad1,048Kolkata994Hyderabad708Pune621Jaipur617Indore448Chandigarh378Raipur264Surat238Cochin215Visakhapatnam208Nagpur172Cuttack151Lucknow142Rajkot141Amritsar122Agra108Karnataka102Guwahati71Ranchi69Allahabad63Calcutta49Jodhpur43SC36Patna33Panaji30Telangana23Jabalpur16Dehradun14Varanasi13Kerala8Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Section 80P55Section 14A51Section 25047Disallowance41Addition to Income36Section 80I30Deduction29Section 26327Section 10A

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 403/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

Showing 1–20 of 215 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Section 80P(2)(a)21
Exemption9

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 400/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 402/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 401/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

47,9820; (ii) Levying income tax of Rs.21,84,59,250 (including interest under section 234B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) amounting to Rs.5,60,56,510); and (iii) Raising a net demand payable of Rs.20,55,69,980 upon the Appellant. Ground No.2 – Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

47,9820; (ii) Levying income tax of Rs.21,84,59,250 (including interest under section 234B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) amounting to Rs.5,60,56,510); and (iii) Raising a net demand payable of Rs.20,55,69,980 upon the Appellant. Ground No.2 – Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer

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

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

ITA 164/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 77/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 91/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 78/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2

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

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

ITA 163/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 61/Coch/2015 :Assessee’s Appeal : AY 2006-07 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Under Normal Provisions of the Income

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 61/Coch/2015 :Assessee’s Appeal : AY 2006-07 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Under Normal Provisions of the Income

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 61/Coch/2015 :Assessee’s Appeal : AY 2006-07 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Under Normal Provisions of the Income

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 61/Coch/2015 :Assessee’s Appeal : AY 2006-07 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Under Normal Provisions of the Income

KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 2 , KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

ITA 95/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

47/ /Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Olavanna Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward – 2(3), Kozhikode vs. Olavanna P.O., Kozhikode [PAN:AAAAO3624P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by: S/Shri Suresh Kumar, R. Krishnan, CAs & Ms. Lakhmi Menon, Adv. Respondents by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement

THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

ITA 995/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

47/ /Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Olavanna Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward – 2(3), Kozhikode vs. Olavanna P.O., Kozhikode [PAN:AAAAO3624P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by: S/Shri Suresh Kumar, R. Krishnan, CAs & Ms. Lakhmi Menon, Adv. Respondents by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement

M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

ITA 47/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

47/ /Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Olavanna Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward – 2(3), Kozhikode vs. Olavanna P.O., Kozhikode [PAN:AAAAO3624P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by: S/Shri Suresh Kumar, R. Krishnan, CAs & Ms. Lakhmi Menon, Adv. Respondents by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 413/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 170Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

47(xiii) of the Act, the total deduction under section 32 of the Act in FY 2013-14 for both transferor and transferee put together shall not exceed the depreciation allowable to the erstwhile Firm during the FY 2013-14, which clearly points to the fact that the assessee was not eligible to claim depreciation on the revalued asset value