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.

32 results for “disallowance”+ Section 246clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai658Delhi466Bangalore192Chennai142Kolkata141Jaipur84Lucknow37Raipur37Chandigarh32Ahmedabad32Hyderabad25Indore24Pune24Nagpur20Surat16SC14Karnataka14Cuttack9Jodhpur8Cochin8Rajkot8Varanasi5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad4Patna4Telangana4Amritsar3Panaji2Jabalpur2Calcutta2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69C31Addition to Income29Section 54F22Section 143(3)15Section 14814Disallowance14Penalty13Section 271A12Section 92C11Section 271

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 661/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Section 37, it must not be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The CIT(A) noted that the AO accepted the purchases or expenses related to the creditors as genuine in the earlier years or the ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 current year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 271(1)(c)7
Double Taxation/DTAA7
ITA 732/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ahmedabad
27 Aug 2024
AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Section 37, it must not be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The CIT(A) noted that the AO accepted the purchases or expenses related to the creditors as genuine in the earlier years or the ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 current year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

ITA 807/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Section 37, it must not be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The CIT(A) noted that the AO accepted the purchases or expenses related to the creditors as genuine in the earlier years or the ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 current year

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3507/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR
Section 80I

disallowances made by the AO against which the Revenue was in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. Thus, once the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IE is upheld in the first year of claim, the same cannot

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

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

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

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

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

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee under repotting the Income which is in I.T.A No. 1443/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 8 Atul Govindji Shroff vs. DCIT consequence of misreporting of facts, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act are also being initiated. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 858/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R N Dsouza, CIT.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 68

disallowed." 16.1 However, the undisputed fact is this that the assessee has not made any sales of the shares of the impugned company. Therefore, in our considered view the addition has been made by the AO which was consequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), on wrong assumption of facts. 16.2 It is also pertinent to note that the loss

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 247/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR &
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act for the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2001-02, was not sustainable. At the time of ITA Nos. 246

YUDO HOT RUNNERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1474/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1475/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

CITY MANAGER ASSOCIATION, C/O. AMC., WEST ZONE OFFICER,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, , BANGLORE

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

ITA 1345/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 City Manager Association Dcit, Cpc Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs Bangaluru. West Zone Office Usmanpura Cross Road Ahemdabad 380 013. Pan : Aaatc2293 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Ms.Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

246/- BY THE Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC Centre, Bangalore. It is seen from the intimation that deduction of Rs.5,40,082/- claimed by the assessee has been reduced to Rs.2,51,182/-. Similarly deduction of Rs.21,75,000/- claimed under section 11(2) has also not allowed, resulting in increased total income of Rs.26,95,695/- as against

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing i.e. DDIT(Inv), Unit-II(l), Ahmedabad on 29.03.2010. During the Course of survey proceedings, it was found that ITA Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of Rs.10,38,591/- made by the Assessing Officer @ 25% of labour charges claimed by the Appellant. 5. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133 A of the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing i.e. DDIT(Inv), Unit-II(l), Ahmedabad on 29.03.2010. During the Course of survey proceedings, it was found that ITA Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016

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

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Darshan GandhiFor Respondent: 08/06/2022
Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 68

246 in March 2014 which can be verified from the annual report of company available at BSE. The shares of the company on exchange were regularly traded. Thus, it is established that the company was in some concrete business and not a paper or bogus company. 3.5 However, the AO disagreed with the submission of the assessee and held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

246/- difference of credit balance with one of the creditor Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. as unaccounted income of the appellant. 2 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition not appreciating that appellant due to shortage of pig iron material sold goods in cash, made payment through shroff to the creditor and subsequently reconciled the difference preparing

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

246/- difference of credit balance with one of the creditor Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. as unaccounted income of the appellant. 2 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition not appreciating that appellant due to shortage of pig iron material sold goods in cash, made payment through shroff to the creditor and subsequently reconciled the difference preparing