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.

271 results for “disallowance”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai903Delhi738Bangalore271Kolkata150Chennai129Jaipur125Ahmedabad124Pune99Chandigarh94Hyderabad77Raipur73Indore69Surat38Rajkot38Guwahati38Lucknow37Visakhapatnam34Cochin33Allahabad26Cuttack26Ranchi23Telangana14Patna13Karnataka11SC8Amritsar8Nagpur7Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3Agra2Jabalpur2Calcutta2Rajasthan1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Disallowance56Section 36(1)(vii)47Section 14845Section 14A44Section 133A38Section 143(2)33Section 143(3)32Section 27432

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the respective Acts and employer's contribution is linked to the payment before the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The result

Showing 1–20 of 271 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 36(1)(viia)28
Deduction26
Survey u/s 133A16

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the respective Acts and employer's contribution is linked to the payment before the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The result

NADATHUR ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1434/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 234BSection 80G

171 7/Mds/2013 dated 31.07.201 (Chennai Tribunal) 15. The assessee therefore submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 2,29,6l,77 under section

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1285/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

171/-. The CIT(A) has deleted the interest disallowances on old advances given, which are covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2010-11 (supra). We find that the very same related /associate enterprises are present for Assessment Year 2011-12 and therefore following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

171/-. The CIT(A) has deleted the interest disallowances on old advances given, which are covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2010-11 (supra). We find that the very same related /associate enterprises are present for Assessment Year 2011-12 and therefore following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

171 (Karnataka) dated 5.12.2022. the relevant part of the order is as under:- “6. Insofar as question No. 4 is concerned, adverting to section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Shri Aravind submitted that the word used in the statute is aggregate average advances "made" by the rural branches. To quote an example, he submitted that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

171 (Karnataka) dated 5.12.2022. the relevant part of the order is as under:- “6. Insofar as question No. 4 is concerned, adverting to section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Shri Aravind submitted that the word used in the statute is aggregate average advances "made" by the rural branches. To quote an example, he submitted that

ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT., LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2011/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Additional No.380, Opp. Cpwd Quarters, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Iii Block, Koramangala, Tax, Bengaluru. Range-Ii, Pan No : Aaaci 3805 Q Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Deepak Chopra, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Mathivanan, Cit(Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mathivanan, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10(38)Section 144Section 14ASection 80I

section 80IB(10) in earlier years. Hence, the disallowance in this Assessment Year shall be restricted to Rs.27,80,57,341/- only account of change in following of accounting standard from AS 7 to AS 9. Otherwise, it will not reflect the true and correct state of affairs of the company and cost of work in progress

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 23

disallowed the expenditure by treating the same as capital in nature whereas the CIT (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by therefore, the same is allowable revenue expenditure. 36. The ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudarshan Chemicals Vs. ACIT 110 ITD 171 and submitted that

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

171 ITR 663 (AP) : TC 41R.551, CIT vs. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. (1995) 123 CTR (On) 162 : (1995) 211 ITR 552 (Ori) and CIT vs. Maharashtra Electrosmelt ,v Ltg\. (1995) 124 CTR (Bom) 117 : (1995) 214 ITR 489 (Bom) : TC 41R.557 / disapproved; CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1932) 59 IA 206~(PC) and Pondicherry -Railway Company

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. First ground of appeal is reproduced below: 1. That, orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru (“Learned AO”) and the Deputy IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: N.G Rasalkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 40A(3)

disallowance of truck hire charges of Rs. 39,49,171/- on account of alleged violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. 9.1 The AO during

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

ITA 341/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 250Section 40

disallowance u / s 43B of the Act of Rs.73,13,171/-on the ground that payments not made to government within due date. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submission of the Appellant that the expenses can only be claimed in the year of payment. Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

171/- and - Revenue share fee from retail outlets: Rs. 33,91,66,656/-.; and (2) Disallowance of concession fee under Section

M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

171/- and - Revenue share fee from retail outlets: Rs. 33,91,66,656/-.; and (2) Disallowance of concession fee under Section

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

Section 92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

Section 92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1741/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

Section 92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1705/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

Section 92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 495/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

Section 92B(1) even without considering the Explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2012. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has restricted its finding only to the applicability of Explanation in the cases where the assessment was completed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation retrospectively. Even otherwise