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.

90 results for “disallowance”+ Section 172clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,114Delhi840Bangalore258Chennai221Kolkata166Jaipur150Surat114Hyderabad100Ahmedabad90Cochin67Raipur47Indore35Calcutta35Pune31Allahabad29Chandigarh27Cuttack24Nagpur21Lucknow20Telangana20Karnataka18Rajkot15Ranchi15Guwahati13Agra10SC7Visakhapatnam6Amritsar6Jodhpur6Jabalpur4Dehradun4Kerala1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Disallowance57Section 26352Section 143(3)42Section 14735Section 14833Section 6832Section 14A29Deduction29Section 143(1)

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

172/- comprising of interest disallowance of Rs.2,44,87,314/- and administrative expenses disallowance of Rs.26,12,858/-, reducing suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee of Rs.1,00,86,493/- there from, he disallowed an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

27
Section 4027
Penalty13

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

172/- comprising of interest disallowance of Rs.2,44,87,314/- and administrative expenses disallowance of Rs.26,12,858/-, reducing suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee of Rs.1,00,86,493/- there from, he disallowed an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

172/- comprising of interest disallowance of Rs.2,44,87,314/- and administrative expenses disallowance of Rs.26,12,858/-, reducing suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee of Rs.1,00,86,493/- there from, he disallowed an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

172/- comprising of interest disallowance of Rs.2,44,87,314/- and administrative expenses disallowance of Rs.26,12,858/-, reducing suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee of Rs.1,00,86,493/- there from, he disallowed an amount of Rs.1,70,13,679/- under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

disallowance under Section 43(5) read with Section 73 for Rs 13,18,08,810/- which is not based upon reasons recorded. Thus, additions effectively made in Assessment Order are not based upon reasons recorded and the legal pleas taken by Appellant are discussed elaborately by various courts and the courts have taken a view that when on the ground

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 304/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

section 172 of the Act were applicable on the payment made to the M/s JR Corporation and therefore the same was outside the purview of the TDS. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable and non-Statutory in nature, the Commissioner noted that it was still not deductible in the current assessment year because

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable and non-Statutory in nature, the Commissioner noted that it was still not deductible in the current assessment year because

M/S. HAVMOR ICE CREAM LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2866/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

Disallowance of Rs.15,52,172/- under section 36(1)(iii) towards Capital Work in Progress (“CWIP”) 1. Based on the facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

172 and not under the provision of Section 194C or 195 disallowance made there is not sustainable. 19. Apart from

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

section 37 of the\nIncome Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law\ncannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable.\nFinally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable and non-Statutory\nin nature, the Commissioner noted that it was still not deductible in the current\n assessment year because

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

section 37 of the\nIncome Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law\ncannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable.\nFinally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable and non-Statutory\nin nature, the Commissioner noted that it was still not deductible in the current\n assessment year because

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRIYAL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.91/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) M/S. Priyal Internaional P. Ltd. Ahmedabad. 297/300, Phase-Ii, Gidc Vs. Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaecp 4640 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowed Rs. 2,28,23,930/- on the premise that the assessee has not been able to prove that investments had been made out of interest free fund which stood deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal preferred by the assessee. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 11. At the time of hearing

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

THE JCIT (OSD), CIRELCE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MIEZA SCHOOL PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT ARCADE PVT. LTD), SURAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 772/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 68

section 14A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee by deleting the 14A disallowance as per Rule 8D (ii) of " 18,23,172

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

Section 115JB of the Act clearly talks on the Income Tax paid or payable only liable to be included for the purpose of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. Thus the addition made by the AO to Wealth Tax paid is liable to be deleted. Ground No.9 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

Section 115JB of the Act clearly talks on the Income Tax paid or payable only liable to be included for the purpose of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. Thus the addition made by the AO to Wealth Tax paid is liable to be deleted. Ground No.9 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 6Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act held not disallowable]. (2) Asstt. CIT v. Alfa Rubber Inds. [2008] 172 Taxman