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.

51 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai122Ahmedabad72Delhi71Bangalore68Hyderabad54Cochin51Pune39Chennai34Jaipur21Kolkata21Visakhapatnam20Rajkot14Nagpur9Panaji8Amritsar7Lucknow6Karnataka5Guwahati5Indore5Surat5Chandigarh3Telangana2Jabalpur2SC1Dehradun1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P230Section 139(1)94Section 80A(5)78Section 80A58Section 14857Deduction50Section 142(1)42Section 8038Section 80J36Disallowance

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

21
Addition to Income19
Cash Deposit9

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

80A would operate by itself. In cases where returns have been filed, the question of exemptions or deductions referable to section 80P would definitely have to be considered and granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well as following sections

M/S.CHELANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

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

ITA 143/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S Chelannur Service Cooperative Vs The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd Ward 2(3), Calicut No.F 1242 Po Chelannur Calicut 673 616 ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 148Section 40aSection 80A(5)Section 80P

section 80A(5) of the Act, deduction u/s 80P(2) shall not be allowed. 4 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kadachira Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs ITO reported

M/S. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 168/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1509, The Income Tax Mararikulam North Officer, P.O., Ward – 2, Cherthala, Alappuzha. Alappuzha – 688 549. Vs. Kerala. Pan: Aacam9305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amaljith P J, Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 13/08/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal (See Note Below) Intimation Order U/S. 1. 143(1) Is Against The Law Rs.7,36,849/- & Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P J, CA
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Ld.AR also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 384 ITR 490 has held that even if return of income was filed before the appellate authority

KOCHIN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,KOCHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(4) &TPS, KOCHI

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

ITA 714/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kochin Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vii/1832, Lalan Road, Mattancherry Kochi 682002 [Pan: Aabak1735C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2(4) & Tps, Kochi Appellant By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kamath, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit. Dr & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kamath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. In paragraph 6.4.9 he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham

PANANCHERY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), , THRISSUR

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

ITA 648/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pananchery Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [Pan: Aabap5815A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act of Rs. 21,31,184/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 228/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 227/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal

SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO K280,ERATTAYAR IDUKKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 795/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim once it was raised for the first time in a return filed in response to the 148 notice issued by the Assessing Officer. She quotes section 80A

MOOSPET SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 682 ,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 35/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Moospet Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Moospet P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aaeam8229N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Shakthan Thampuran Ngar, Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 4,52,13,522/- invoking provisions of section 80AC(ii) and also made addition of Rs. 79,460/- u/s. 36(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal

EDAKKAD URBAN SAHAKARANA SANGAM,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR

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

ITA 596/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowing the deduction claimed totaling to Rs. 15,06,410/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 637/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip BalachandranFor Respondent: 08.02.2024
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 804(5)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Section 80A(5) to disallow deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has erred

KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - NO: 628,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1, (1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

ITA 636/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kadukutty Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadukutty P.O., (Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [Pan: Aabak0755A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Yash, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Yash, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of Rs. 1,36,55,587/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 781/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 783/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 782/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section