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.

784 results for “disallowance”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,900Delhi2,315Kolkata1,841Chennai870Bangalore784Ahmedabad704Pune507Jaipur334Raipur309Hyderabad291Chandigarh254Surat229Rajkot217Indore144Visakhapatnam140Nagpur139Amritsar118Karnataka113Cuttack105Lucknow97Cochin97Guwahati73Ranchi51Patna46Calcutta44SC28Panaji28Jodhpur25Allahabad22Agra17Varanasi17Jabalpur15Telangana15Kerala9Dehradun8Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Disallowance61Section 143(3)48Section 139(1)40Deduction36Section 10A35Section 143(1)32Section 43B27Section 1126Section 14A

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

carry forward the loses and set off with the income for the A.Y. 2017-18. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the disallowance of the set off of the losses

Showing 1–20 of 784 · Page 1 of 40

...
23
Section 2(15)21
Depreciation18

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

forward loss was disallowed. The Assessee filed for Rectification and reprocessing of return of income under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Assessee has received an order u/s 154 dated 23.6.2019, rejecting the claim by the Assessee and has disallowed carry

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of set off of losses does not arise. 10. Without prejudice, assuming even for argument sake without conceding, when the assessment was carried out the only way the correctness of the loss brought forward

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

carried forward for set off against the business income. On the contrary there is no prohibition in section 115JB as per which the amount of unabsorbed loss is to be discarded after the expiry of eight years from the year in which it was first computed. Even if loss is brought forward from 50 years back, that has also

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

carried forward for set off against the business income. On the contrary there is no prohibition in section 115JB as per which the amount of unabsorbed loss is to be discarded after the expiry of eight years from the year in which it was first computed. Even if loss is brought forward from 50 years back, that has also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

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

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance has arisen owing/consequent to the passing of Order dated 10.05.2018 by the Ld. AO giving effect to the MAP Resolution in assessee's case for AY 2012-13 which resulted in change in the loss carried forward

M/S ELECTRONICS & CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)

carry forward loss as claimed by the appellant. 2. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the appellant and refrained from upholding the disallowance

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(A)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

carry forward losses and depreciation before the allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in disallowing

INDO NISSIN FOODS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 154Section 263

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 55,69,139 is not a mistake apparent on record u/s. 154 of the Act. It is a matter of legal interpretation. Therefore, the AO was not justified in passing a rectification order. 7. As per the provisions of section 115JB, brought forward loss from a year is available

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S BRITISH ENGINES(I)P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dave, CA
Section 10ASection 10B

carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years. 21. It is in this background the Finance Act, 2003 was introduced by inserting the words "the year ending upto the first day of April, 2001", for that in cls. (1) and (2) of sub-s. (6) restricting the disallowance

M/S. TEXTRON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P.K. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years. 21. It is in this background the Finance Act, 2003 was introduced by inserting the words "the year ending upto the first day of April, 2001", for that in cls. (1) and (2) of sub-s. (6) restricting the disallowance

M/S. INTEGRACE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (APPEALS) NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 72/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 44A

disallowance under section 43B is found to be consistent with facts on record and in accordance with law and hence does not warrant any interference. 3.6. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the second issue raised by the assessee is regarding carry forward loss

SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1094/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years. 21. It is in this background the Finance Act, 2003 was introduced by inserting the words "the year ending upto the first day of April, 2001", for that in cls. (1) and (2) of sub-s. (6) restricting the disallowance

EXCELSOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MYSORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) , MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2191/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Ram Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

carry forward of loss which was disallowed by the CPC. The ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. AO to allow

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 918/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

Carry forward of losses 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the Appellant's claim for carry forward

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1548/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92E

carried out after verifying the details of purchases available on Page No.47 of the TP study report (extracted supra). The Assessing Officer first determine the purchase of raw material and components from the AE and then determine the ALP having regard to the mean profit margin of comparable cases at 8.26%.” 25. The learned DR relied on the order

HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 274/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit (Osd), No.10/6, Lavelle Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaach 7551 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshita, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Akshita, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Carry forward of loss and set off of loss are apparent from records and no debatable issues are involved here. In view of the above, the AO was justified in disallowing

M/S RANGSONS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,MYSORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.448/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Rangsons Electronics P. Ltd, No.347/D1 & 2, Electronics City, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore 570 016 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacr8750R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Dinesh P, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 15.10.2015 Pronounced On : 20.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 10ASection 263

carried forward towards the succeeding year from Rs.1,94,23,422/- claimed by the assessee to Rs.1,13,57,050/-. He had also made a detailed computation of the income of the assessee starting from the profit before tax Rs.12,92,140/- and arriving at a loss of Rs.6,28,631/- after making various allowances and disallowances

WINTAC LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri H Anil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 40Section 40a

carry forward of set off losses etc., we are of the clear view that the methodology adopted by the ITA Nos.950 & 1335/Bang/2016 Page 9 of 13 assessee to prioritise set off of unabsorbed loss regardless of unabsorbed depreciation being lower is not in tune with the aim and object of Clause (iii) to Explanation 1 of Section 1 15JB

MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kaleemulla Khan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed the entire deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act. 9.2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under Section 10A of the Act without setting off the losses carried out forward