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.

23 results for “section 68”+ Section 197clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi572Karnataka493Mumbai475Bangalore300Chennai118Raipur107Jaipur97Hyderabad96Ahmedabad87Chandigarh76Kolkata73Pune61Surat53Indore38Lucknow29Ranchi29Cochin23Calcutta21Visakhapatnam16Cuttack14Telangana12Rajkot9Jodhpur9Nagpur8Varanasi8Patna7Amritsar7Allahabad7SC5Agra5Rajasthan4Guwahati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Dehradun1Orissa1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income15Unexplained Investment9Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Section 14A8Capital Gains8Section 143(3)5Section 92C3Section 12A3

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

68,464 Total 15,60,52,275 11. It is submitted that in respect of reimbursement of salary and other expenses to Apollo Vrerdestein B.V., Netherlands the same were held to be allowable by the Tribunal for AY 2010-11 vide 21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. order dated 10.01.2017. The decision of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon'ble Kerala

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Section 113
Section 2(15)3
Disallowance3

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 50/COCH/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 307/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received