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.

201 results for “disallowance”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,469Delhi2,915Chennai955Bangalore920Kolkata806Ahmedabad749Jaipur505Pune448Hyderabad410Indore331Chandigarh287Cochin201Surat167Visakhapatnam139Raipur136Lucknow122Cuttack118Rajkot112Agra94Karnataka83Nagpur72Guwahati66Amritsar50Calcutta46Ranchi46Panaji33Allahabad32Dehradun25Jodhpur21Telangana18Patna16SC14Jabalpur12Varanasi8Rajasthan4Kerala3Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 25091Section 143(3)61Section 14A38Section 26332Disallowance32Section 12A28Section 37(1)26Deduction25Section 80P23Section 11

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 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 201 · Page 1 of 11

...
21
Addition to Income20
Revision u/s 26311

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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 should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 33/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 275/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 272/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 310/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE ACIT, , KOCHI vs. M/S.FEDERAL BANK LTD, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 309/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 746/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 35/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 34/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 747/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 745/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by AO invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) by orders all dated 23.1.2014, followed decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank (2011) 9 taxmann.com 148(ker) and directed disallowance to be made u/s.14A