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.

171 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,600Delhi1,267Bangalore717Chennai489Kolkata448Jaipur187Hyderabad184Ahmedabad171Raipur124Pune106Surat99Chandigarh60Karnataka56Rajkot47Indore45Lucknow35Cochin30Amritsar27Panaji26Visakhapatnam25Cuttack25Nagpur25Jodhpur22Telangana16Ranchi11SC10Dehradun10Patna9Guwahati8Agra6Punjab & Haryana6Jabalpur5Kerala5Allahabad3Varanasi3Calcutta2Rajasthan2Tripura1

Key Topics

Disallowance76Section 143(3)69Section 80I61Addition to Income61Section 143(1)48Section 4047Section 1142Deduction39Section 143(2)36Section 263

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 939/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, with Shri Karan Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Alokkumar, CIT.D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

disallowance. We uphold his action, and dismiss the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the references to Section 9(1)(vii), as made by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative, we find that aspect of the matter is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a large number of judicial precedents- including

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
32
Depreciation21
Section 20119

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1129/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, with Shri Karan Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Alokkumar, CIT.D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

disallowance. We uphold his action, and dismiss the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the references to Section 9(1)(vii), as made by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative, we find that aspect of the matter is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a large number of judicial precedents- including

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 195Section 5

201, then, for the purpose of this sub- clause, it shall be ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 15 - deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1245/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 195Section 5

201, then, for the purpose of this sub- clause, it shall be ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 15 - deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69

Section 201(1) of the Act are satisfied, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall be deleted

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69

Section 201(1) of the Act are satisfied, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall be deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND vs. ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1015/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1882/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 981/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANANAD CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 982/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1044/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

201-202, Info-tower-1, Infocity, GNR Circle, Udyog Vs. Gandhinagar-382009 Bhavan, Gandhinagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACI 9567 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing 24/01/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 36/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowed the deduction and raised the demand of Rs. 3,46,277,17.00 only towards the TDS and interest respectively under section 201(1

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.] 13.14 It is pertinent here to refer the first proviso to section 201

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

ITA 652/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 201Section 201(1)

1) and 201(1A) and confirmed the demand of Rs. 83,790/- raised for A.Y. 2013– 14. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted Form No. 26A i.e. C.A. Certificate certifying that the payee / recipient of interest

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

1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma 15,19,72,500/- 16-11-2011 18-05-2012 55.1 The TPO found that as per the provision of FEMA 1999 and RBI master circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01-07-2014, the process of allotment of shares/equity instrument shall be completed

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2472/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2853/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2471/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

201(1), then for the purpose of clause 40(a)(ia), it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the payee. The Revenue would content that the benefit of this proviso would be available to the assessee only prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2013. Various