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.

67 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35D(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai175Delhi169Ahmedabad67Chennai51Bangalore27Kolkata25Hyderabad24Raipur19Chandigarh12Cochin11Pune8Visakhapatnam5Cuttack5Jaipur5Karnataka5Rajkot5Guwahati3SC3Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Agra1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1Indore1Kerala1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 14A96Disallowance59Addition to Income55Section 35D53Section 143(3)48Section 80I48Deduction23Section 8021Section 271(1)(c)15Depreciation

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

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) contained an exhaustive list of expenses is entirely misplaced and expenditure incurred by appellant in connection with QIP expenses is allowable as deduction u/s 35D of the Act. The appellant has alternatively claimed that as it has only claimed 1/5th of expenditure u/s 35D, disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

13
Section 11512
Penalty10

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 336/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is by dismissed. 61.1 In view of the above finding in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 472/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is by dismissed. 61.1 In view of the above finding in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is by dismissed. 61.1 In view of the above finding in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 285/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is by dismissed. 61.1 In view of the above finding in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct

BRIGHT AUTOPLAST LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSTT. CIT,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1990/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl.

For Appellant: Ms. Sonia Kumar Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Milin Mehta, AR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 35D

Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). ITA No.1990/Ahd/2015 & ten others Bright Autoplast Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Asst.Year – 2008-09 & Ors. The Appellant relies on the following judgements wherein it has been held that ROC Filing fees and stamp duty are in nature of expenditures allowable u/s.35D of the Act. 1) CIT vs. Muti Metals

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

C) dated 15 July 2009 confirming that Vega UAE is a registered company, a body corporate incorporated in the Free Zone of Ajrnan (UAE) under the law laid down by the Amiri Decree No, (2) of 1996 on amending the Arniri Decree No. (3) of 1988. In view of the above above, we submit that Vega UAE is an independent

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

C) dated 15 July 2009 confirming that Vega UAE is a registered company, a body corporate incorporated in the Free Zone of Ajrnan (UAE) under the law laid down by the Amiri Decree No, (2) of 1996 on amending the Arniri Decree No. (3) of 1988. In view of the above above, we submit that Vega UAE is an independent

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2357/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2352/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2308/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, to make disallowance of Rs.76,15,655/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(b) and Rs. 8,97,050/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(c). The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the additions by excluding bank guarantee commission, legal/stamp duty charges and bank charges which were added

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. CAMPHOR & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD.,, VADODARA

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

ITA 598/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 598/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 D.C.I.T., M/S Camphor & Allied Products Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Plot No.3, Vadodara. Gidc Industrial Estate, Nandesari, Vadodara-391340. Pan: Aaacc9211E

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 35DSection 35D(1)Section 35D(2)

disallowed by the AO by restricting the said depreciation to 25%. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C!T(A) erred in [aw and on fact in deleting the capitalization of preliminary expenses written off u/s 35D of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the preoperative expenses

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 419/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE JT.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2473/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

THE DCITGANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1170/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

THE ACIT,GNR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 115Section 14A

C) Rs.6,25,83,251 III 5% of the average value of investment Rs.84,81,427 on which tax free income is received or receivable. IV Total Rs.7,10,64,678 3.4 In view of the above, AO disallowed expense of Rs. 7,10,64,678/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act and added to the total

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1470/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 14A

C" Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (ITA No.4404 & 1883/Mum/2004) is squarely applicable to the appellant company. 8.7 The loss incurred by the appellant company on account of evaluation of contract on the last day of accounting year i.e. before the date of maturity of forward contract be allowed as business loss

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1792/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 14A

C" Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (ITA No.4404 & 1883/Mum/2004) is squarely applicable to the appellant company. 8.7 The loss incurred by the appellant company on account of evaluation of contract on the last day of accounting year i.e. before the date of maturity of forward contract be allowed as business loss