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.

106 results for “disallowance”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,842Delhi1,549Chennai468Bangalore374Ahmedabad339Hyderabad302Jaipur294Kolkata272Pune210Chandigarh177Indore137Raipur109Surat107Cochin106Rajkot77Nagpur74Lucknow74Visakhapatnam71Amritsar59Ranchi56Allahabad41Guwahati40Jodhpur37Patna36SC34Cuttack32Agra25Dehradun9Jabalpur8Panaji7Varanasi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 250119Section 143(3)53Section 14A39Disallowance32Section 80P30Section 4020Addition to Income20Deduction18Section 3615Section 80P(2)(a)

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

12
Section 12A8
Limitation/Time-bar7
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 356/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 60,65

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 355/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 60,65

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 354/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 139Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D corresponding to such exempted income. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of s. 14 r.w. rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 60,65

NEW KABLE POINT,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 36Section 40

disallowed an amount of Rs 65,285/ under section 36 of the Act in the total income statement The assessing

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 679/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 92C

disallowance of Rs. 35,28,65,197/- being R&D Revenue Expense and Rs. 1,40,38,500/- being R&D Capital Expense claimed under section

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

disallowance u/s. 43B. 15. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a partnership firm whose assessment on returned income of total loss of Rs.29,22,630 was reopened. In reassessment it was found that assessee has outstanding gratuity of Rs.2,26,052, sales tax of Rs.3,65,230 and leave encashment of Rs.41,160 which were

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 47

disallowance u/s. 43B. 15. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a partnership firm whose assessment on returned income of total loss of Rs.29,22,630 was reopened. In reassessment it was found that assessee has outstanding gratuity of Rs.2,26,052, sales tax of Rs.3,65,230 and leave encashment of Rs.41,160 which were

M/S.UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 4, KOLLAM

ITA 390/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of Rs.2,02,04,788/- and Umayanallor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Rs.1,85,65

M/S.UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 4, KOLLAM

ITA 389/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of Rs.2,02,04,788/- and Umayanallor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Rs.1,85,65

THE ERNAKULAM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

ITA 112/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

disallowing section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of 2 ITA No.112/Coch/2024. The Ernakulam Urban Co-op Society Ltd. Rs.2,02,04,788/- and Rs.1,85,65