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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 115Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai29Delhi22Surat14Kolkata12Bangalore7Chennai5Pune3

Key Topics

Section 92C5Section 2635Section 143(3)4Section 143(2)4Section 36(1)(viii)4Comparables/TP3Transfer Pricing3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 14A2Section 115P2Section 234A2

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

disallowance appears to have been made without examining the merits of the supporting documents or the claim itself. 38.2 In view of the above facts and in the interest of justice, we find merit in the assessee’s contention. If the requisite documentation, including Form 67, was furnished within the prescribed time, then the assessee is entitled to the credit

M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 163/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80JSection 92C

115P. Even otherwise, the interest levied is excessive. d) Levying a sum of Rs. 4,49,95,680/- as interest under section 234B. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B. Even otherwise, the interest levied is excessive. e) Levying

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

ITA 828/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 119Section 120Section 120(3)Section 124Section 124(3)Section 143(2)

115P, 115S, @115WD, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 115WH, 115WJ, 115WK, 139, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, 158BFA sub- section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes @or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 8 forth directions or instructions

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

disallowance project spirit report. Rs.28,06,21,440 on DDT and interest of Rs.15,43,41,791 u/s 115P of the Act. 8. Grounds of appeal relating to short credit of 37,78,149 tax deducted at source / tax collected at source – Rs.37,78,149 9. Grounds of appeal relating to levy of 2,03,53,26,920 interest

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

disallowance at 14.45%. He thus prayed for the deduction has to be allowed as claimed by assessee. 8.6 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. Page 31 IT(TP)A Nos. 810 & 835/Bang/2016 8.7 We have perused the submissions advanced based on the records placed before us. We note that, admittedly STPI Unit

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

disallowance at 14.45%. He thus prayed for the deduction has to be allowed as claimed by assessee. 8.6 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. Page 31 IT(TP)A Nos. 810 & 835/Bang/2016 8.7 We have perused the submissions advanced based on the records placed before us. We note that, admittedly STPI Unit

CANARA BANK vs. CIT,

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

Section 43B, since the liability is not debited to Profit & loss account. The action of the learned CIT was wholly unreasonable and bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the depreciation on overseas branch investments at par with domestic investments. The learned CIT has erred in understanding the domestic and overseas depreciation