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.

230 results for “section 68”+ Section 64clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,264Mumbai2,530Bangalore911Chennai758Karnataka645Ahmedabad638Kolkata596Jaipur546Hyderabad429Indore307Surat299Pune295Chandigarh270Cochin230Raipur190Rajkot114Cuttack94Telangana93Visakhapatnam81Nagpur79Lucknow77Guwahati67Calcutta64Allahabad57Amritsar56Ranchi56Jabalpur53SC49Agra42Panaji42Jodhpur36Patna27Dehradun20Varanasi16Rajasthan10Orissa7Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25094Section 153A50Section 201(1)36Section 271C27Section 143(3)24Section 142(1)20Section 20118Addition to Income16TDS13Deduction

VYTHIRI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,VYTHIRI vs. ITO, WARD 1, KALPETTA P.O

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 627/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vythiri Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Vythiri P.O., Wayanad 673576 [Pan: Aaaav8077B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kalpetta .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2023-24 On 14.10.2023 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 1,46,100/- After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 1,68,13,360/-. Against

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)

Showing 1–20 of 230 · Page 1 of 12

...
11
Disallowance10
Section 194J9

68,13,360/-. Against 2 Vythiri Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 14.03.2025 at total income of Rs. 6,90.018/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction

PUNNAYURKULAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO P 417,PUNNAYURKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1& TPS, GURUVAYUR

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

ITA 498/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd No. P 417, Punnayurkulam, Thrissur. [Pan: Aacap 6129 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1 & Tps, Guruvayur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,891/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the appellant by holding that appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act for interest earned from cooperative bank, and disallowed the interest earned from treasury. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

THIRUVALLA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVALLA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 250/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2021-22 Thiruvalla Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant No. 1307, Kavumbhagam, Thiruvalla P.O, Kerala – 689102. Pan:Aacat9668A

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

68 of 2017. For the sake of immediate reference, relevant paragraphs from the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court are extracted herein below: “7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that arises for consideration before us must be answered against the Revenue

PERINGANDOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVA BANK LTD,ATHANI, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 230/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Peringandoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant 11/102A, Athani P O, Athani, Thrissur-680581. Pan: Aadap3407G Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(1), Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68 of 2017. For the sake of immediate reference, relevant paragraphs from the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court are extracted herein below: “7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that arises for consideration before us must be answered against the Revenue

THE CENTRAL FINANCIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CO OPERATIVE INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 282/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

68 of 2017. For the sake of immediate reference, relevant paragraphs from the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court are extracted herein below: “7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that arises for consideration before us must be answered against the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. VALSALA RAJ, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 177/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 10(26)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. VALSALA RAJ, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 175/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 10(26)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

64,994/- 10,00,000/- The assessee’s reply finds mention at page 2 of the assessment order, as under: ‘a) Roy Cashew Products: The difference arose because of the quality claim adjustment made by the other party on our ledger account in their books on 14.4.2015, we have no information at all. We had not received any debit note

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 328/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

64,68,420. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Page 11 of 19 Addition u/s 40A(2) on account of rate difference in respect of paddy purchases from related parties 4. While completing the assessment the purchase cost in respect of 5 transactions of purchases of paddy effected from related Concerns

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 2

68 taxmann.com 152 in identical facts and circumstances decided the issue in favor of the assessee by observing as under: “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant materials on record and the case law on which the learned AR had placed strong reliance. The primary issue for our consideration is whether the CIT (A) is justified

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

68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly

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)

64,72,004. It was found that the term loan outstanding in the end of the previous years was Rs. 17.74 lakhs. Under 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

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)

64,72,004. It was found that the term loan outstanding in the end of the previous years was Rs. 17.74 lakhs. Under 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

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

64,406.60 and deducted reserves and provisions released during the year as well as depreciation allowable as per IT rules amounting to Rs. 1,68,78,654.05in order to arrive at the net profit of Rs.1,53,59,677.04 as per the provisions of the income tax act and also declared as gross total income. The learned

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

64,406.60 and deducted reserves and provisions released during the year as well as depreciation allowable as per IT rules amounting to Rs. 1,68,78,654.05in order to arrive at the net profit of Rs.1,53,59,677.04 as per the provisions of the income tax act and also declared as gross total income. The learned

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

68,773/-. The AO also reduced the net agricultural income to Rs.3,00,000/- vide order dated 30.12.2019. 3.2 The learned PCIT thereafter issued notice under Section 263 of the Act for the reason that the deduction claimed by the assessee for society welfare expenses amounting to Rs. 24,15,860/- under Section

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

64,920. Since all the purchases of liquor were made from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and they are found fully recorded in the accounts and all the expenses have already been booked in the Trading and P & L account, the entire amount of undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,78,19,693/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

64,920. Since all the purchases of liquor were made from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and they are found fully recorded in the accounts and all the expenses have already been booked in the Trading and P & L account, the entire amount of undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,78,19,693/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

64,920. Since all the purchases of liquor were made from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and they are found fully recorded in the accounts and all the expenses have already been booked in the Trading and P & L account, the entire amount of undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,78,19,693/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

64,920. Since all the purchases of liquor were made from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and they are found fully recorded in the accounts and all the expenses have already been booked in the Trading and P & L account, the entire amount of undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,78,19,693/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee