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.

151 results for “disallowance”+ Section 66(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,781Delhi3,377Chennai1,105Bangalore1,098Kolkata889Ahmedabad876Hyderabad618Pune583Jaipur574Indore383Chandigarh323Surat285Visakhapatnam176Raipur155Cochin151Cuttack116Rajkot111Amritsar88Lucknow71Karnataka64Nagpur61Ranchi56Guwahati54Calcutta40Panaji37Allahabad34Jodhpur26SC25Agra24Patna24Telangana22Jabalpur20Varanasi15Dehradun13Kerala9Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25097Section 80P65Addition to Income40Deduction36Disallowance31Section 32(1)(iia)30Section 12A29Section 153C28Section 143(3)27Section 14A

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)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...
23
Section 1121
Depreciation10

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)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

66,26,572/- in respect of loss on onerous contracts, (b) disallowance of INR.77,71,759/- in respect of employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI), (c) disallowance of interest of INR.12,68,911/- under Section 36(1

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

1) – For the purposes of this section “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased by:- (a)…………. (b)…………. (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liability, or (d)……….. (i) the amount or amounts

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

1) – For the purposes of this section “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased by:- (a)…………. (b)…………. (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liability, or (d)……….. (i) the amount or amounts

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

1) – For the purposes of this section “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased by:- (a)…………. (b)…………. (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liability, or (d)……….. (i) the amount or amounts

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

1) – For the purposes of this section “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased by:- (a)…………. (b)…………. (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liability, or (d)……….. (i) the amount or amounts

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

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

EDAMALAYAR SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IX 103A,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 AND TPS , THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 556/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

66,425 and also not allowed the claim made u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the disallowance u/s.80P of the Act by holding that that the appellant did not file the return of income placing reliance on the provisions of section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

66) (SC) 4) Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (385 ITR 37) (SC) 5.2 Further, it was submitted that the assessee is solely existing for the purpose of imparting education. Hence, the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments: 1) Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Others

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)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram ("CIT(A)") has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.116,75,66