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.

42 results for “disallowance”+ Section 268A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad42Delhi37Mumbai24Cochin22Jaipur15Bangalore9Kolkata7Chennai6Karnataka6Amritsar5Indore2Jodhpur1Lucknow1Nagpur1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Disallowance29Section 268A26Section 143(3)23Section 271(1)(c)17Section 14A17Section 40A(3)14Section 14713Section 10B11

THE ACIT, CIR 2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MAZDA LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3338/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3075-3338/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Mazda Limited D.C.I.T., Mazda House, 650/1, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Panchvati, 2Nd Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabcm9273H

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 234ASection 271

1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.23,28,587/-, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

M/S. MAZDA LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

Penalty11
Section 2(24)(iv)10
Deduction9

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3075/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3075-3338/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Mazda Limited D.C.I.T., Mazda House, 650/1, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Panchvati, 2Nd Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabcm9273H

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 234ASection 271

1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.23,28,587/-, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,75,86,377/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Page 20 of 25 ITA nos.1385/AHD/2013 and others Asstt. Years 2006-07 and others 21 the Act, in respect of payments made for reimbursement of expenses to clearing

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,75,86,377/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Page 20 of 25 ITA nos.1385/AHD/2013 and others Asstt. Years 2006-07 and others 21 the Act, in respect of payments made for reimbursement of expenses to clearing

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. In addition to it on merit also, the assessee has clearly disclosed all the particulars in respect of their claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the act of deemed sale vide note

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2484/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before taking up the above appeals of the Revenue, the ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently contested maintainability of the above three appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.3 of 2018 whereby the Board has instructed the Revenue not to file appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2520/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before taking up the above appeals of the Revenue, the ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently contested maintainability of the above three appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.3 of 2018 whereby the Board has instructed the Revenue not to file appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2518/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before taking up the above appeals of the Revenue, the ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently contested maintainability of the above three appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.3 of 2018 whereby the Board has instructed the Revenue not to file appeal before

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2485/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before taking up the above appeals of the Revenue, the ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently contested maintainability of the above three appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.3 of 2018 whereby the Board has instructed the Revenue not to file appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2519/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before taking up the above appeals of the Revenue, the ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently contested maintainability of the above three appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.3 of 2018 whereby the Board has instructed the Revenue not to file appeal before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. SMT. INDRAMATI C. PANDEY WIDOW & L/H OF LATE CHANDRABHAN R. PANDEY,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2142/Ahd/2015 and CO No

ITA 2142/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit

SMT. INDUMATI C. PANDEY L/H OF LATE CHANDRABHAN R. PANDEY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2142/Ahd/2015 and CO No

ITA 445/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit

SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1777/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1777/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, 803 Sahjanand Complex, Circle-8, Vs. Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1832/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), 803 Sahjanand Complex, Vs. Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in allowing disallowance in respect of amortization of lease rent. 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on Wind Mill. 3. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1777/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, 803 Sahjanand Complex, Circle-8, Vs. Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1832/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), 803 Sahjanand Complex, Vs. Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in allowing disallowance in respect of amortization of lease rent. 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on Wind Mill. 3. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals

AMAZON TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, whereas appeal of the assessee is dismissed due to non- prosecution

ITA 1406/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1406/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 268ASection 36(1)(iii)

1)(iii) made by the AO for Rs.43,52,172/- is restricted at Rs.12,87,357/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” If this Rs.12,87,357/- is reduced from Rs.43,52,172/-, then tax effect on the remaining amount along with deletion of disallowance made under section 14A would be less than Rs.20 lakhs, and the appeal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMAZON TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, whereas appeal of the assessee is dismissed due to non- prosecution

ITA 1648/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1406/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 268ASection 36(1)(iii)

1)(iii) made by the AO for Rs.43,52,172/- is restricted at Rs.12,87,357/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” If this Rs.12,87,357/- is reduced from Rs.43,52,172/-, then tax effect on the remaining amount along with deletion of disallowance made under section 14A would be less than Rs.20 lakhs, and the appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, KHEDA vs. ADF FOODS LTD.,, KHEDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 1746/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2013-2014 Dcit, Kheda Circle Adf Foods Ltd Nadiad Vs. 83/6,Gidc Industrial Estate Dist: Kheda 387 002. Kamla Road Nadiad, Dist. Kheda 387 001. Pan : Aacca 2270 K

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 195(1)Section 268ASection 40

1), the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act is confirmed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow consequential relief only to the extent of sales linked variable 3 commission paid by the appellant after necessary verification. Thus, appellant succeeds partly in this regard.” 5. A perusal of the break-up reproduced

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

disallowance in unabated years, without any specific incriminating material contradicting the documented transactions, is illegal. The AR submitted that it has never been accepted by Shri Shiv Kumar Gogia that these were penny stocks and that the Ld. AO has misunderstood his statement and has wrongly drawn adverse inference against the assessee. He submitted that firstly, there was nothing incriminating

KOMAL TEX FAB PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 140 & 141/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year: 2009-2010 & 2010-11 With Cross Objection No.148/Ahd/2013 In Asstt.Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Survey No.167/1687 Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 572/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Survey No.167/1687 Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 268A

1. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,95,670/- made on account of disallowance of cash payment to contractors. 2. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,08,014/- made on account of shortage of stock of yarn. 3. A perusal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI PRATAP BHAGWANJI THAKKAR,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal ITA No

ITA 238/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri H. V. Vasa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 268A

section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it comes to the notice that the tax effect is more or Revenue’s case falls within