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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 15Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi72Mumbai54Chennai19Bangalore19Pune16Kolkata10Jaipur8Ahmedabad8Hyderabad7Indore6Varanasi4Cochin2SC2Visakhapatnam1Nagpur1Dehradun1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14A36Disallowance8Section 143(3)7Section 2544Section 132(1)3

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 143/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them the right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was of the view that in view of such Section, the option shall be granted at a predetermined price. Even

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LTD, ELISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 48/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them the right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was of the view that in view of such Section, the option shall be granted at a predetermined price. Even

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 142/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them the right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was of the view that in view of such Section, the option shall be granted at a predetermined price. Even

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED, ELLISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 49/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which defines ESOP to mean the option given to employees which gives them the right to purchase or subscribe to securities at a future date but at a predetermined price. Therefore, the AO was of the view that in view of such Section, the option shall be granted at a predetermined price. Even

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

section 32(1), 43(1) and 43(6)to the tune of Rs.1,90,09,241/-under normal provisions of the Act “5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,09,241/- made by the AO on account disallowance of depreciation on Goodwill

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 243/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2010-11

disallowance of Rs 97,286. 17. Ground no. 4 is thus allowed. 18. In ground no. 5, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP and the AO have erred in ignoring the material placed before them and in denying the claim of the Appellant

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 671/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2009-10

disallowance of Rs 97,286. 17. Ground no. 4 is thus allowed. 18. In ground no. 5, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP and the AO have erred in ignoring the material placed before them and in denying the claim of the Appellant

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2609/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2008-09

disallowance of Rs 97,286. 17. Ground no. 4 is thus allowed. 18. In ground no. 5, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP and the AO have erred in ignoring the material placed before them and in denying the claim of the Appellant