Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai9,054 Delhi7,807 Bangalore2,864 Chennai2,549 Kolkata2,507 Ahmedabad1,151 Jaipur881 Hyderabad852 Pune732 Indore544 Chandigarh460 Surat436 Raipur373 Rajkot256 Amritsar238 Visakhapatnam220 Nagpur219 Cochin217 Karnataka211 Lucknow204 Cuttack137 Guwahati108 Agra97 Jodhpur85 Telangana85 Ranchi83 SC76 Panaji73 Allahabad72 Patna70 Calcutta60 Dehradun44 Varanasi32 Kerala27 Jabalpur20 Punjab & Haryana8 Rajasthan8 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 Himachal Pradesh3 Orissa3 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Gauhati1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 Bombay1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26310 Deduction4 Section 115B3 Section 260A3 Section 143(3)3 Section 403 Section 9(1)(vii)3 Disallowance3 Addition to Income3 Section 68

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

24,151 5 Disallowance of claim of unrealized foreign exchange fluctuation gain for adjustment against cost of assets as per section

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

2

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/20/2018HC Kerala27 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD

24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7 principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/21/2018HC Kerala27 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD

24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7 principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/22/2018HC Kerala27 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD

24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7 principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/18/2018HC Kerala27 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD

24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7 principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/14/2018HC Kerala27 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD

24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee objects to the proposal of revenue to apply Rule 7 principally by referring to the matters pending before the Tribunal

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/257/2014HC Kerala13 Oct 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(i) was on the ground that the commission paid was fees for technical services on which tax is deductible at source, which the assessee failed to deduct. The amount shown as commission paid to the non-resident was added to I.T.A.No

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

ITA/18/2017HC Kerala23 Jun 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(2)Section 260A

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that Section 194H is attracted to I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -8- the subject entry. For argument sake even if one assumes that Section 194H has no application, Section 194G will be attracted. The Assessing Officer determined the net income assessable to tax for the Assessment

MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/23/2018HC Kerala04 Aug 2022

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees

Section 10(31)Section 24Section 37

disallowance of interest on loan paid on purchase of apartment claimed under the head "Income from House Property"? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the apartment was not used for business purpose and therefore not entitled to deduction under Section 24

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

ITA/180/2019HC Kerala11 Nov 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)Section 260ASection 263

24)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If it is to be treated as a corpus donation, the same can only be excluded in computing the total income under the provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By virtue of section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had held that nothing

M/S PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA/92/2014HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/200/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/227/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

ITA/206/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/185/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

ITA/207/2013HC Kerala22 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

section 115BBE to be prospective in nature. 5. Whether the Tribunal and the Principal CIT have erred or not in holding disallowance of the set-off of the brought forward losses against the deemed income allowed by the assessing authority in its original order and whether or not such disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed the depreciation claimed. The Assessing Officer adjusted the actual cost of assets of the assessee in the assessment year 2009- 10 as follows: STATEMENT DEPRECIATION AS ON 31/03/2009 SHOWING DEDUCTION OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED: - Block of asset WDV as on 01/04/2008 as per 143(3) order dated 15/12/2010 for A.Y 2008-09 Subsidy Gross Value after subsidy 1 Buildings

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before