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.

107 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai411Delhi299Kolkata142Chennai140Bangalore135Ahmedabad107Hyderabad98Pune84Jaipur55Cuttack31Lucknow28Indore27Chandigarh27Visakhapatnam24Cochin22Surat20Rajkot19Nagpur13Amritsar13Jodhpur12Agra6Dehradun6Guwahati5Patna5Panaji4Raipur4Jabalpur3SC1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 11179Section 143(1)117Exemption60Section 12A55Section 1051Disallowance48Deduction46Addition to Income45Section 143(3)38Section 250

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 116/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 118/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad

Showing 1–20 of 107 · Page 1 of 6

36
Section 15435
Section 26331
24 Apr 2024
AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 110/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 109/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 117/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 113/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 111/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

disallowed in the first round to the extent of Rs.1,70,28,337/- for the reason that the assessee had not received the export consideration within six months from the end of the financial year ,which was a condition necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer

APRAMEYA ENGINEERING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(1)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

10B of the Act is an "exemption provision" and hence, assessee claiming such exemption has to be "strictly" comply with the exemption provisions. However, notably, the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd 391 ITR 274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

disallowed as the assessee had duly fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. In the case of ITO v. Accentia Technologies 52 taxmann.com 89 (Mum), the Mumbai Tribunal held that deduction under section 10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

disallowing exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessee filed Form 10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [ (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib ) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1653/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [ (iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib ) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss account

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB