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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi375Mumbai368Bangalore151Kolkata92Ahmedabad84Hyderabad62Pune54Chennai46Visakhapatnam15Chandigarh13Indore9Jaipur7Amritsar7Karnataka6Surat5Cochin4Guwahati3Calcutta2Panaji2Telangana1Ranchi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 92C5Section 36(1)(iii)4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 36(1)(va)3Section 36(1)(viii)2Transfer Pricing2Depreciation2

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

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That

Comparables/TP2
TP Method2

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 489/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 156Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowed the employees contribution to PF and ESI by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.South India Corporation Limited [(2015) 58 Taxmann 208 (Ker.)] (judgment dated 27.03.2015). The view taken by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the DRP. 4.1 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 119/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

section 92B. The DRP failed to appreciate that the Transfer Pricing Officer had on its own benchmarked the advertisement expenses incurred in India although was not referred to the TPO. The DRP failed to appreciate that advertisement expenses incurred in India by themselves did not constitute an international transaction in the absence of any specific reference being made in that

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 38/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

section 92B. The DRP failed to appreciate that the Transfer Pricing Officer had on its own benchmarked the advertisement expenses incurred in India although was not referred to the TPO. The DRP failed to appreciate that advertisement expenses incurred in India by themselves did not constitute an international transaction in the absence of any specific reference being made in that