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.

331 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,484Mumbai1,405Bangalore485Chennai375Ahmedabad331Jaipur247Kolkata208Indore135Chandigarh133Hyderabad132Pune127Cochin117Raipur95Nagpur88Cuttack74Rajkot57Surat52Amritsar49Guwahati49Visakhapatnam47Lucknow46Panaji45Calcutta39Ranchi35Karnataka25Jodhpur24Patna15SC15Varanasi14Agra14Allahabad11Telangana10Dehradun9Kerala5Jabalpur3Himachal Pradesh3Orissa2Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)84Disallowance80Section 14A63Addition to Income63Deduction42Section 80I36Section 43B34Depreciation34Section 8022Section 2(15)

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1643/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares is added as income u/s. 56(2)(viii) to the total income of the assessee.” 5. In appeal before, Ld. CIT(Appeals), on merits, the assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that

Showing 1–20 of 331 · Page 1 of 17

...
17
Section 1117
Section 4016

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- received by way disproportionate allotment of shares is added as income u/s. 56(2)(viii) to the total income of the assessee.” 5. In appeal before, Ld. CIT(Appeals), on merits, the assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that

DCIT, CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. OZONE INDIA LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2081/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance of Architect fees attributable to the unsold inventory.” 5. Briefly stated, the assessee company filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 in question which was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was gathered by the AO that one M/s. Kalavir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (KEPL) amalgamated with the assessee company under the scheme

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1668/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChowkshiFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of has been used in sections 37 and 57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly borne out that these have not been used interchangeably. The Legislature is fully conscious of an employment

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

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

56,000 1 Committee 2 Sitting fees of Board of Directors 36,800 Salary Cost – various departments 3 7,04,931 (proportionate) 4 Conveyance and Fuel 3,265 25,503 5 Other administrative expenses Nil 6 Interest Expenses 8,25,900 Total 12. The AR further submitted that such scientific computation was accepted by the Department in earlier assessment years

SUNNY TARUNKUMAR DOSHI,JETPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

56(2)(vii) of the Act which has not come into picture in the original assessment as there was no dealing as such of payment related to the said purchase of land. The confirmation clearly set out that the assessee is not in possession with the said land. Thus, the reopening itself is not justifiable and hence

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

vii) the demerger is in accordance with the conditions, if any, notified under sub-section (5) of section 72A by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this clause, "undertaking" shall include any part of an undertaking, or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity taken as a whole, but does

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

vii) the demerger is in accordance with the conditions, if any, notified under sub-section (5) of section 72A by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this clause, "undertaking" shall include any part of an undertaking, or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity taken as a whole, but does

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 36 (1)(vii)/36 (2), 37 or 28 of the Act. 55. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT-A, who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “ On careful consideration of entire facts it is observed that issue regarding disallowance of proportionate interest is covered in favour of Appellant by decision

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 36 (1)(vii)/36 (2), 37 or 28 of the Act. 55. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT-A, who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “ On careful consideration of entire facts it is observed that issue regarding disallowance of proportionate interest is covered in favour of Appellant by decision

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 36 (1)(vii)/36 (2), 37 or 28 of the Act. 55. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT-A, who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “ On careful consideration of entire facts it is observed that issue regarding disallowance of proportionate interest is covered in favour of Appellant by decision

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 265/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2344/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once

K.P. WOVEN PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 169/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 13-B, Navbharat Society, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2) Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaeck6307M

For Appellant: Ms Asthamaniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr..D.R
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

vII)(b). Appellant has further submitted that it has obtained CA certificate as provided in Rule llUA(2}(b), according to which share premium comes to Rs.l 17.28 per share. Appellant has also submitted that, even as per book value, the value of each share is Rs.99/-. The appellant's argument that provision of section 56(2) (viib

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

vii) The proceedings for Assessment year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend income / income from mutual funds which does not form part of the total income as contemplated under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 914/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

vii). The CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the provisions of section 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 932/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

vii). The CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the provisions of section 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 1885/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

vii). The CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the provisions of section 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs