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.

4,493 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,487Delhi12,709Bangalore4,493Chennai4,339Kolkata3,835Ahmedabad3,147Pune2,984Hyderabad2,039Jaipur1,803Chandigarh1,140Surat1,101Indore1,007Cochin785Raipur678Visakhapatnam659Cuttack562Karnataka545Rajkot521Amritsar472Nagpur430Lucknow367Panaji221Agra221Jodhpur204Guwahati175Ranchi161Telangana145Allahabad128SC116Patna112Dehradun104Calcutta89Jabalpur60Varanasi47Kerala44Punjab & Haryana22Orissa12Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income59Disallowance53Deduction46Section 143(3)37Section 1130Section 26325Section 14A24Depreciation24Section 14821Section 10A

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute ITA Nos.1199, 1200/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 28 books has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 4,493 · Page 1 of 225

...
20
Section 14717
Section 153A17

KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

ITA 3061/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

3) of the Act vide\norder dated 14-12-2018 wherein the deduction claimed under section\n80P of the Act was disallowed and income was assessed at Rs.\n11,64,663/- only. Against the said assessment, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before the learned CIT(A).\n3.1\nSubsequently, the order under section 263 of the Act was passed\nproposing

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

section 11 of the Act, the capital expenses may be considered as application of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the payments were made to individuals without . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 20 sufficient proof that these were incurred for charitable purposes. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

section 11 of the Act, the capital expenses may be considered as application of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the payments were made to individuals without . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 20 sufficient proof that these were incurred for charitable purposes. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

11 of 23 As per the aforesaid paragraph 28.6 of the aforesaid Circular, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Act the maximum Marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of income, with has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Payment made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

11 of 23 As per the aforesaid paragraph 28.6 of the aforesaid Circular, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Act the maximum Marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of income, with has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Payment made

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2115/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form 9A within the due date. (ii) Section 11(1) explicitly mandates the filing of Form 9A for the accumulation of income for the charitable purpose to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilization of fund for charitable activities. ITA Nos.2115 & 2116/Bang/2024 Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Doddaballapur Page

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, labour welfare fund and contractor's welfare fund without appreciating that the impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B cannot be made in the process of computing the total income under section 11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, labour welfare fund and contractor's welfare fund without appreciating that the impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B cannot be made in the process of computing the total income under section 11

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

disallowances made on the merits. However, the learned\nCIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeals on both the counts.\n7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee\nis in appeal before us.\n8. Before us, the assessee has raised the issue of assessment order\nbeing barred by time and consequently argued that the assessment\norder

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

11) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the disallowance, if any, under Sec.40A(3) ought to have been determined by reckoning the ultimate beneficiary in respect of the payments towards transportation charges, namely the respective truck drivers and not the union leaders / representatives who merely accepted the payments on behalf of the truck drivers

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

11) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the disallowance, if any, under Sec.40A(3) ought to have been determined by reckoning the ultimate beneficiary in respect of the payments towards transportation charges, namely the respective truck drivers and not the union leaders / representatives who merely accepted the payments on behalf of the truck drivers

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

11) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the disallowance, if any, under Sec.40A(3) ought to have been determined by reckoning the ultimate beneficiary in respect of the payments towards transportation charges, namely the respective truck drivers and not the union leaders / representatives who merely accepted the payments on behalf of the truck drivers

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 162/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Dr.Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

3) of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of section in disallowing the claim to the extent of 20%. 10 6. The assessee has also raised additional ground regarding the enhancement of disallowance made by the CIT (Appeals) on account of the additional compensation of Rs.68.80 lakhs on account of the additional compensation

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

3) dated 28/12/2018 by making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of interest paid amounting to Rs. 78,11

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

3) dated 28/12/2018 by making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of interest paid amounting to Rs. 78,11

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule