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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,078Delhi662Bangalore266Kolkata259Chennai212Jaipur206Hyderabad132Ahmedabad89Pune88Rajkot85Chandigarh58Indore57Visakhapatnam41Surat35Guwahati33Amritsar28Nagpur26Raipur24Lucknow21Ranchi19Agra17Jodhpur16Panaji12Cochin9Karnataka6Cuttack6Varanasi5Patna5Allahabad5Telangana3Dehradun2SC2Jabalpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Addition to Income9Section 133A8Survey u/s 133A8Section 44A6Section 153C6Disallowance6Section 143(3)4Section 2634Deduction3Condonation of Delay

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 463/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

survey operation u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 02.08.2006 stated to be in connection with the search operations conducted on the same date in the case of one Mr. E. Shemsudeen. It is stated that certain incriminating documents relating to daily transaction of the appellant were

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

3
Section 40A(3)2
Section 372

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

survey operation u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 02.08.2006 stated to be in connection with the search operations conducted on the same date in the case of one Mr. E. Shemsudeen. It is stated that certain incriminating documents relating to daily transaction of the appellant were

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the assessee’s business premises on 08.10.2013 during which discrepancies were noticed in the books of accounts of the assessee for which the assessee had offered additional income of Rs.1 crore in addition to the regular return income of Rs.1,11,620/- but had subsequently filed its revised return

AKKAVILA SAJEENAN AGGREGATES ,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 693/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 30Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 44A

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 6.3.2019. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment, the ITA Nos.693 & 694/Coch/2022 Page 2 of 5 AO noticed that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs.45

AKKAVILA SAJEENAN AGGREGATES ,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/COCH/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 30Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 44A

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 6.3.2019. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment, the ITA Nos.693 & 694/Coch/2022 Page 2 of 5 AO noticed that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs.45

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 09.02.2016. During the course of survey proceedings, undisclosed sales were unearthed and additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was found. Subsequent to the survey the appellant revised the return of income at a total income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,86,602/-. 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,86,602/-. 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

survey u/s. 133A of the Act at his business premises on 25.3.2008 (para 1 of the assessment order), necessitating the return for the relevant year being subject to the verification procedure under the Act. Further, the note-sheet clearly states that the AO is to examine the claim of refund arising out of advance-tax, which obtains in the instant