Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

556 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,915 Delhi2,512 Chennai717 Bangalore609 Ahmedabad556 Jaipur543 Hyderabad530 Kolkata452 Pune359 Chandigarh292 Raipur265 Indore239 Rajkot193 Surat190 Cochin140 Amritsar140 Visakhapatnam139 Lucknow95 Nagpur84 SC65 Cuttack60 Guwahati55 Ranchi54 Allahabad50 Patna43 Jodhpur42 Panaji27 Agra18 Dehradun18 Jabalpur16 Varanasi6 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)94 Addition to Income76 Disallowance50 Section 14A46 Section 14846 Deduction39 Section 14730 Section 80I27 Section 3524 Section 68

KAPADIA MARKETING INC.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 95/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 25(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,05,00,000 under Section 35(1)(ii) being the donation of Rs.70,00,000 given

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Showing 1–20 of 556 · Page 1 of 28

...

24

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) and alternate claim under section 35(1)(iv) 26. During the assessment proceedings

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

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

disallowance of Rs.10,19,24,003/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer by allocating a portion of common research and development (R&D) expenses to units of the assessee claiming deduction under sections 10AA, 80-IC, and 80-IE of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

disallowance of Rs.10,19,24,003/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer by allocating a portion of common research and development (R&D) expenses to units of the assessee claiming deduction under sections 10AA, 80-IC, and 80-IE of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35

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)

section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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 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)

section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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)

section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

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)

section 35(2AB) of the Act. “(1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and In facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of Rs.7,26,22,384/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the serious discrepancies brought out by the AO. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TAYLORMADE RENEWABLES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

disallowed the claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance as made by the Assessing

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

35,15,29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

35,15,29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

35,15,29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

35,15,29,011/- Less: Amount already disallowed Rs.3,93,211/-). 3.1. further the Ld AO held in view of the explicit provisions of clause (f) of Explanation to section

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1645/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1646/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1644/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1336/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1335/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

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

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1334/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

disallowing claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,04,50,000/- under section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act as per following

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

ITA 1583/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowed and added as income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) allowed 100% deduction in respect of revenue expenditure of Rs. 15,07,662/- under Section 37(1) of the Act and allowed 100% of the capital expenditure under Section 35