← All Phrases

“Section 144(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(2)24 judgments

BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 189/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 43C

justified in invoking Rule 8D of the Rules in the absence of any objective satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, in terms of Section 144(2) of the Act, having regard to the accounts of the Appellant? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 740/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 738/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 736/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 735/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 728/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 726/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 725/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

earning exempt income to Rs.10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii).\n\n1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 724/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 723/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 722/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

exempt income to Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. Rs.1,86,46,037/-computed by A.O. in accordance with the provisions of section 144(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the disallowance

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 14A

Rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can\narise. It was held that :-\n“41. Having regard to the language of Section 144(2) of the Act, read\nwith Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the\ntheory of apportionment

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW\nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW\n\nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL LTD, VADODARA

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

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") in accordance with Rule BD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") read with Section 144(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)1(), VADODARA

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

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") in accordance with Rule BD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") read with Section 144(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"B\" BENCH, MUMBAI\nSHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the disallowance offered by the Respondent in terms of section 144(2) of the Act. It only on being dissatisfied with the above, does Rule SD of the Rules can be invoked to compute the disallowance

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the disallowance offered by the Respondent in terms of section 144(2) of the Act. It only on being dissatisfied with the above, does Rule SD of the Rules can be invoked to compute the disallowance

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the disallowance offered by the Respondent in terms of section 144(2) of the Act. It only on being dissatisfied with the above, does Rule SD of the Rules can be invoked to compute the disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2