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.

78 results for “section 68”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,136Mumbai699Karnataka554Bangalore295Ahmedabad242Jaipur226Chennai185Hyderabad151Chandigarh144Kolkata125Indore105Pune97Cochin78Raipur62Calcutta58Rajkot46Telangana43Surat41Cuttack37Visakhapatnam36Amritsar28Lucknow24Guwahati21Agra20SC20Nagpur16Jodhpur11Patna8Allahabad5Rajasthan5Orissa4Jabalpur2Dehradun2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250114Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Section 20120Section 194J10Penalty10TDS10Section 14A8Disallowance7Section 43B

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

5
Addition to Income5
Section 143(3)3

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 607/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 610/COCH/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 613/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 608/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 611/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 614/COCH/2010[007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 609/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 612/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 606/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

112 of 2011 arise from the orders of penalty u/s.271 C. The assessment years involved are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007 -08 and 2008-09. A copy of the High Court order, in ITA No.l05/2011 dated 10th day of August 2018, which is similar for all the above years is at pages 1 to 14 of the Paper

BINDHUMOL CHANDRAN PILLAI CHANDRALAYAM,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 215/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the 2 Bindhumol Chandran Pillai appellant. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax based on the information that the appellant made huge cash deposit to the tune

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

SRI.PHILIP ANIL CHERIAN,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 412/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Income Tax Act"), the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds if such funds were borrowed for business purposes. If the assessee is able to divert borrowed funds to other companies, whether it be sister concerns or not, obviously, the purpose

PHILIP ANIL CHERIAN,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 77/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Income Tax Act"), the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds if such funds were borrowed for business purposes. If the assessee is able to divert borrowed funds to other companies, whether it be sister concerns or not, obviously, the purpose

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly