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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi76Chandigarh48Mumbai37Chennai13Kolkata12Guwahati10Rajkot8Ahmedabad6Dehradun5Jaipur4Hyderabad4Pune3Lucknow2Bangalore1Indore1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I29Section 808Deduction6Disallowance6Section 143(2)4Section 1474Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 92C2Section 35

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2490/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

section 801C of the I. T. Act, 1961. The appellant further claimed that as per tire various decisions and judgements the income pertaining to the interest on electricity deposit, recovery from transporters and sundry balances of suppliers return back was held to be the income derived indirectly from the business / manufacturing activities of the appellant, and therefore, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

2
Transfer Pricing2

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2037/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

section 801C of the I. T. Act, 1961. The appellant further claimed that as per tire various decisions and judgements the income pertaining to the interest on electricity deposit, recovery from transporters and sundry balances of suppliers return back was held to be the income derived indirectly from the business / manufacturing activities of the appellant, and therefore, the same

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 3233/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

section 801C of the I. T. Act, 1961. The appellant further claimed that as per tire various decisions and judgements the income pertaining to the interest on electricity deposit, recovery from transporters and sundry balances of suppliers return back was held to be the income derived indirectly from the business / manufacturing activities of the appellant, and therefore, the same

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 702/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

disallowed. 10.2.3.2 Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the assesses was asked during assessment proceedings various queries relating to its claim u/s 801B/IC of the 1. T. Act, 1961. 10.3.0 The assessee was asked to justify the following during the course of assessment proceedings: i. Justification of claim u/s. 80IB/IC ii. Details of products manufactured u/s. 80IB/1C

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD , NAVRANGPURA H.O AHMADABAD CITY

ITA 715/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

disallowance made by the AO of alleged excess deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80-IC of the Act, raising the following grounds: “(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC despite the fact that a second substantial expansion does not entitle the unit to a fresh period