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.

37 results for “section 68”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi984Mumbai644Karnataka462Bangalore246Ahmedabad183Chennai167Jaipur163Kolkata133Hyderabad109Chandigarh77Raipur61Pune59Indore56Guwahati43Cochin37Surat33Panaji31Lucknow28Nagpur24Allahabad22Visakhapatnam21Calcutta16SC15Rajkot10Cuttack9Patna9Dehradun8Telangana7Agra7Kerala5Jodhpur5Rajasthan5Ranchi5Amritsar4Orissa3Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income28Unexplained Investment14Exemption13Section 699Section 408Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Capital Gains8Deduction5Disallowance

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

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

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 1324
Section 153C4
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

2,08,68,464 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

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 40/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 47/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 49/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 44/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 48/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 45/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 42/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 39/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 46/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 43/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 41/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

220 Company 19,87,061.360 54,02,90,715 3.2 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R.Pratap, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower than the cost of production in the course

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee