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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi70Mumbai24Kolkata16Pune10Bangalore9Ahmedabad8Cuttack8Indore5Dehradun5Hyderabad5Rajkot3Jaipur2Chennai2Chandigarh2Patna2Amritsar2Raipur2Varanasi2Visakhapatnam2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 1013Addition to Income8Exemption6Disallowance6Section 1545Section 143(1)4Section 80C4Section 143(3)4Section 404Section 201(1)

MADHU KHATRI, SINGAPORE,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(1)Section 90

disallowance is unjustified. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO(CPC) in rejecting the FTC claim solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 67 by the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, and against

4
Section 80E4
House Property4

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

section 270A of the act is bad in law. 3.6 The Ld.AO observed that addition was made in the assessment order by disallowing the deduction u/s. 80E and the claim u/s. 10(13A

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

section 270A of the act is bad in law. 3.6 The Ld.AO observed that addition was made in the assessment order by disallowing the deduction u/s. 80E and the claim u/s. 10(13A

SRI ANANT PANDURANGACHARYA DAMBAL ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3138/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Anant Pandurangacharya Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dambal, Income Tax, C/O Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle – 1[1], W/O. Shri H. Chandrappa, Hubballi. Door No.1813/42, Teachers Colony, 4Th Main, 9Th Cross, Vidyanagar, Davangere – 577 005. Pan : Agvpd 6639 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

disallowances of the assessee’s claims (i) for exemption under section 10 of the Act of Rs.51,000/- (now contested to the extent of Rs.47,800/-) in respect of House Rent Allowance under section 10(13A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit is filed by the Revenue stating that " I Shri. Santosh Bheemaiah, IRS son of Sri. Bheemaiah.B aged 42 about years, Deputy

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 10Section 10(13)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

disallowances were made which is as under: i. Value of perquisites under section 17(2) of the Act - Rs.12,335/- (twice considered) ii. HRA exemption under section 10(13A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. SPECIAL LAND AND ACQUISITION OFFICER (METRO). KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Special Land & Acquisition Officer (Metro), The Deputy Karnataka Industrial Commissioner Of Areas Development Board, Income-Tax (Tds), 14/3, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2 (1), Vs. R.P. Bhavan, Nruptunga Bangalore. Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaatk1305J (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 05/Bang/2021 (In Ita No. 8/Bang/2020) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Metro), The Deputy Karnataka Industrial Commissioner Of Areas Development Board, Income-Tax (Tds), 14/3, 2Nd Floor, R.P. Circle – 2 (1), Bhavan, Vs. Bangalore. Nruptunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaatk1305J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate Shri Muzaffer Hussain, Cit Revenue By : (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 13ASection 194LSection 201(1)Section 29

13A was conducted on 04/09/2013 in case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to verify TDS compliances. During the course of survey the Ld.AO found that Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (BMRC) was developing Metrorail facility in Bangalore and has entrusted the work of compulsory acquisition of immovable properties for its project to the KIADB. It was observed

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 331/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Rishi Harlalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Sr. Counsel
Section 920

section 920 of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.331 & 167/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 15 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee has also moved an application for raising additional ground which is as under:- “13A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) has in his fresh

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 167/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Rishi Harlalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Sr. Counsel
Section 920

section 920 of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.331 & 167/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 15 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee has also moved an application for raising additional ground which is as under:- “13A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) has in his fresh