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.

544 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai919 Delhi832 Bangalore544 Kolkata398 Chennai304 Ahmedabad224 Pune201 Hyderabad157 Chandigarh98 Jaipur62 Cochin51 Karnataka50 Lucknow38 Indore33 Cuttack32 Visakhapatnam30 Rajkot30 Surat27 Nagpur15 Amritsar14 Jodhpur13 Agra10 Telangana9 Dehradun8 Guwahati8 Varanasi7 Panaji6 Ranchi6 Calcutta4 Raipur4 Patna4 Jabalpur3 Allahabad1 SC1 Himachal Pradesh1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)78 Section 10A54 Addition to Income52 Transfer Pricing48 Section 92C47 Section 1145 Disallowance44 Comparables/TP41 Deduction36 Section 143(1)

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

disallowance of Rs.86,63,23,825 claimed as deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 544 · Page 1 of 28

...

29

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

Disallowance of claim under Section 10B : Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. (ii) Unexplained investment u/s. 69 : A.Y. 2008-09. (iii) Unexplained

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

disallowance by the Ld. AO under section 10A regarding the voluntary income offered by assessee for computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 39. On one hand, it is the assessee’s contention that provisions of section 92(4) will not be applicable in this case as the transfer Page 24 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 pricing adjustment has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1475/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed this claim for a reason that exports were effected by the merchant exporters, who alone had received the foreign exchange. AO also noted that assessee had received the consideration for sale from such merchant exporters only in Indian rupee and there was no concept of "deemed exports" in section 1OB of the Act. Learned CIT(A), accepted the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1332/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed this claim for a reason that exports were effected by the merchant exporters, who alone had received the foreign exchange. AO also noted that assessee had received the consideration for sale from such merchant exporters only in Indian rupee and there was no concept of "deemed exports" in section 1OB of the Act. Learned CIT(A), accepted the claim

M/S INTERNATIONAL STONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 539/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed this claim for a reason that exports were effected by the merchant exporters, who alone had received the foreign exchange. AO also noted that assessee had received the consideration for sale from such merchant exporters only in Indian rupee and there was no concept of "deemed exports" in section 1OB of the Act. Learned CIT(A), accepted the claim

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 608/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed this claim for a reason that exports were effected by the merchant exporters, who alone had received the foreign exchange. AO also noted that assessee had received the consideration for sale from such merchant exporters only in Indian rupee and there was no concept of "deemed exports" in section 1OB of the Act. Learned CIT(A), accepted the claim

M/S |NTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1474/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed this claim for a reason that exports were effected by the merchant exporters, who alone had received the foreign exchange. AO also noted that assessee had received the consideration for sale from such merchant exporters only in Indian rupee and there was no concept of "deemed exports" in section 1OB of the Act. Learned CIT(A), accepted the claim

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. M/S HOTHUR TRADERS 100% EOU, BELLARY

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

ITA 32/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Prasad, CITFor Respondent: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 40

10B of I.T. Act for claiming exemption under the said section. The CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the facts that the assessee has failed to fulfill the conditions as laid down In Section 10A/10B of IT. Act, which ultra vires of the Income-Tax Act. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 910/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A Nos.910 & 911/Bang/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 10B of the Act related to the Functional genomics division of the assessee was disallowed and thereby as against

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 911/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A Nos.910 & 911/Bang/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 10B of the Act related to the Functional genomics division of the assessee was disallowed and thereby as against

MPHASIS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1104/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 10B therefore, the said disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) is also eligible for deduction under Section 10B

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R

Section 10ASection 139

10B of the Act but in the impugned case the exemption sought by the assessee is related to section 10AA of the Act but the ratio laid down in section 10 or 10AA of the Act are similar for computing income are the same. Respectfully following the issue cited (supra) mentioned above, the interest income received on temporary Fixed Deposits

M/S. INTERGARDEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1292/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1292/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Chand Yadav, Advocate & Shri. Suresh Balani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Shri. Manoj Kumar, Add. CIT

Section 10BSection 144CSection 234B

10B of the Act, which give room for no doubt. AO is obliged to deduct such amount from the export turnover while computing the deduction under the said section. However the alternative claim of the ITA.1292/Bang/2010; IT(TP)A.887,963/Bang/2013 Page - 3 assessee that such amounts which are deducted from the export turnover was required to be deducted from

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance. A software

BHARAT MINES AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 974/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011 – 12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

10B of the Act. 12.1 The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of deduction under Section 10B of the Act amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 379/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri D. Devaraj, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Prescilla Singsit, D.R

Section 10BSection 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 10B cannot be disallowed or restricted merely on the ground that certain plant and machinery is situated outside the bounded