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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai28Delhi15Ahmedabad15SC9Amritsar8Chennai7Bangalore6Indore5Dehradun4Pune4Nagpur4Jaipur4Visakhapatnam3Cuttack3Jodhpur2Kolkata2Hyderabad2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Cochin1Chandigarh1Jabalpur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 6812Section 26312Section 80H9Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 2503Section 1483Reopening of Assessment3Section 80I2

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 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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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 Ahmedabad
Section 1542
Deduction2
Bogus Purchases2
24 Apr 2024
AY 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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

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

Section 155(11A) of the Act. In the second round before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee remained that the goods exported to the said tune of Rs.1.70 crores had returned back in the next year i.e. in FY 2007-08 pertaining to AY 2008-09. The claim of the assessee

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance of entire deduction under Section. 80P(2) of the Act of Rs. 40,84,182/-. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the bifurcation of deduction under Section. 80P of Rs. 40,84,182/- into Section 80P(2)(c) at Rs. 50,000/- and Section 80P(2)(d) at Rs. 40,34,182/-. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 128/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

disallowed. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the entire controversy relating to proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Directorate in the assessee’s own case has been decided in favour of the assessee by CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No. 10523 of 2016 –DB vide order dated 08.12.2023, wherein it has been held that the purchases made

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 127/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

disallowed. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the entire controversy relating to proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Directorate in the assessee’s own case has been decided in favour of the assessee by CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No. 10523 of 2016 –DB vide order dated 08.12.2023, wherein it has been held that the purchases made

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2003-04 Nirma Limited Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaacn 5350 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Revenue By Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

11A. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the insurance claim has no element of export turnover and that consequently it must sustain a reduction of ninety per cent under Expln. (baa). Now it is necessary to note that Expln. (baa) in terms does not refer to export turnover. Sub-section (1) of section 80HHC contemplates a deduction

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

11A) by Investigation Wing, depositor has stated that she has given unsecured loan to the appellant out of her savings and income shown in return of income. As stated supra, the appellant is not required to prove source of source. Considering this fact, addition made by AO for Rs.70,55,000/- is deleted. 6.19 ln view of above discussion

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

11A) by Investigation Wing, depositor has stated that she has given unsecured loan to the appellant out of her savings and income shown in return of income. As stated supra, the appellant is not required to prove source of source. Considering this fact, addition made by AO for Rs.70,55,000/- is deleted. 6.19 ln view of above discussion

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

11A) by Investigation Wing, depositor has stated that she has given unsecured loan to the appellant out of her savings and income shown in return of income. As stated supra, the appellant is not required to prove source of source. Considering this fact, addition made by AO for Rs.70,55,000/- is deleted. 6.19 ln view of above discussion