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.

114 results for “disallowance”+ Section 301clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai882Delhi662Chennai181Bangalore162Ahmedabad114Kolkata106Pune93Jaipur85Indore60Cochin50Hyderabad47Surat40Allahabad37Rajkot35Chandigarh29Lucknow21Cuttack21Visakhapatnam14Nagpur14Panaji8Karnataka7Raipur6Jodhpur5Telangana5Patna3Amritsar3SC3Ranchi2Agra2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income71Disallowance61Section 80I38Deduction38Section 4036Section 14735Section 14A30Section 271(1)(c)27Section 69C

SHRI DINESH MILLS LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BARODA

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

ITA 781/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 154ASection 194HSection 40(1)(ia)

disallowance of interest expense claimed by the assessee can be made on account of investments as discussed above. 6.5 We also note that there was also the addition on account of interest expenses under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule in the own case of the assessee pertaining to the assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

25
Penalty25
Section 14823

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZAVERI & COMPANY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 296/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, A.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Section 14A to the extent of Rs.59,357/- as well as addition of Rs.5,00,294/- towards deemed income from house property. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of Rs.26,301

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ARROW DIGITAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Arrow Digital Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. 1005-06, “Aditya”, 10Th Floor Vs. Nr.Sardar Patel Sewa Samaj Mithakhali, Navangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaeca 2215 J

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(2)(i)

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 1962 and added a sum of Rs.1,71,035-to the total income of the assessee. 4. With regard to ground no.2 in respect of disallowance of bad debt claim of Rs.1,73,37,301

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

301/- should have been disallowed in the assessment treating the same as capital expenditure. Omission to do so, resulted in incorrect allowance of the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,34,95,397/- and thus underassessment of income to that extent accordingly. 3. The provisions of Section

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

301/- should have been disallowed in the assessment treating the same as capital expenditure. Omission to do so, resulted in incorrect allowance of the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,34,95,397/- and thus underassessment of income to that extent accordingly. 3. The provisions of Section

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)

301 5 TP upward adjustment on corporate guarantee 2,388,000 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 6 Trademark and overseas product registration 10,658,244 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 7 corporate advertisement 14,433 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 8 expenses not approved by DSIR 163,725,000 9 Addition on account sale to sister concern

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)

301 5 TP upward adjustment on corporate guarantee 2,388,000 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 6 Trademark and overseas product registration 10,658,244 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 7 corporate advertisement 14,433 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 8 expenses not approved by DSIR 163,725,000 9 Addition on account sale to sister concern

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance to the amount of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act by holding it to be infractuous. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have independently decided the said ground on merits. 4. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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 dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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 dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted

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)

section 36(1)(iii) are clearly applicable. As regard appellant's argument that it has its own accrual to make investment in CWIP, appellant has incurred expenditure out of cash credit account on which interest has been paid. Appellant has relied on the case of Nirma Limited in which Honourable Tribunal has stated that in a case of cash credit

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 873/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 80IA will accordingly be reduced by this amount and the amount admissible for deduction would be as under: (I) 80IA deduction as claimed in the ROI - Rs.31,15,94,168/- (II) Reduction for allocation of HO Expenses - Rs.6,63,71,309/- ITA Nos. 873, 2951 &1369/Ahd/2015 Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Asst.Year –2011-12 Net allowable deduction u/s 80IA

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1369/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 80IA will accordingly be reduced by this amount and the amount admissible for deduction would be as under: (I) 80IA deduction as claimed in the ROI - Rs.31,15,94,168/- (II) Reduction for allocation of HO Expenses - Rs.6,63,71,309/- ITA Nos. 873, 2951 &1369/Ahd/2015 Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Asst.Year –2011-12 Net allowable deduction u/s 80IA