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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai166Delhi121Kolkata49Ahmedabad26Chennai13Surat11Bangalore10Jaipur9Pune5Karnataka3Guwahati3Nagpur3Rajkot3Hyderabad2Punjab & Haryana1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 115J25Section 10A16Section 26313Section 408Section 143(3)7Section 14A7Disallowance7Addition to Income7Depreciation5Section 154

M/S. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 597/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 3Section 7Section 8D

section 115J falling under Chapter-XII-B of the Act. ITA Nos.597, 598 & 772(B)/2019 3 6. The assessee relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd., wherein it was held that disallowance

4
Set Off of Losses4
Deduction4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S YAHOO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD , BANGALORE

ITA 2510/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.38,69,891. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground Nos.3A and 3B raised by the assessee read as follow: - “3A. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by holding that the additional revenue of Rs.157,993,598 would not be eligible

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, HAVERI vs. M/S.MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,, HAVERI

ITA 133/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.38,69,891. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground Nos.3A and 3B raised by the assessee read as follow: - “3A. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by holding that the additional revenue of Rs.157,993,598 would not be eligible

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

disallowed for the reason that they are not ascertained liabilities. 7.3 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. It was submitted that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to Banks. In support of this the learned Authorised Representative contention, cited and placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements, including

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

115J also. Resultantly the term "loss" was understood as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. The Legislature made its intention clear by providing in the successor sections that the loss shall not include depreciation, it is so provided in section 115JA and the similar wording has been used in clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to section

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

115J also. Resultantly the term "loss" was understood as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. The Legislature made its intention clear by providing in the successor sections that the loss shall not include depreciation, it is so provided in section 115JA and the similar wording has been used in clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to section

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income-Tax, [Formerly Known As Symphony Bangalore - 3. Teleca Corporation India Private Limited) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No. 85 & 86, Sadarmangla Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

section 115J.” 5.10.2 Since there is no provision u/s 115 JB of the Act for addition of “Forex Losses” OR “Prior Period Expenditure”, such disallowances/additions are not tenable under the law and the CIT cannot issue directions to make additions/disallowances which are not allowed under the law. In our considered view, as the twin conditions of an erroneous order

SRI CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 201/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 96

disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D. Though there is no mention specifically on the verification of capital gains by the AO, the same cannot be a reason for coming to the conclusion that the AO has not made any enquiry. Further, the enquiry made by the AO need not be extended to the verification

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II
Section 268A

disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground that it would amount to double deduction. We find that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Lissie Medical Institute (Supra) held that the claim of depreciation on capital expenditure for acquiring of the asset would amount to double deduction when the assessee has already 9 ITA No.658

ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 419/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

disallowances of Rs. 58,25,36,982 (including transfer pricing adjustment) to the total income of the Appellant under normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 54,25,13,912 while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act; 2.1.1 Having considered the submissions, it is seen that according to section 115JB (5) all other provisions