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.

51 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(24)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai223Delhi172Ahmedabad105Chennai95Kolkata73Bangalore51Cochin40Raipur33Jaipur31Pune31Hyderabad30Nagpur22Indore14Cuttack12Lucknow12Chandigarh9Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Rajkot7Surat6Guwahati6Karnataka4Agra4Amritsar3SC2Varanasi2Kerala1Patna1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)43Disallowance38Addition to Income37Deduction27Section 3526Section 32(1)(iia)26Section 143(3)26Section 80P(2)(a)21Depreciation20

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 277/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 08.11.2013, it would be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act only for and from Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned AR further contended that voluntary corpus donations received by the assessee for a specific purpose

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

Section 15419
Section 14A18
Section 12A13

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 274/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 08.11.2013, it would be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act only for and from Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned AR further contended that voluntary corpus donations received by the assessee for a specific purpose

THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (EXEMPTIONS ) CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU vs. M/S A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm I.T.A. No.1464/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A. Shama Rao Foundation, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle- 13-2-116, Hotel Srinivas Building, 1, Mangaluru G.H.S. Road, Mangaluru-575 001. [Pan:Aaata 1629 B] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee -Respondent) Revenue By Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri V. Srinivasan, Adv. Date Of Hearing 09/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2020 O R D E R

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

disallowed the claim of corpus nature and treated Rs.36,16,88,341/- as regular income of the assessee trust. The Assessing Officer was of the view that all such donations from other trusts are to be treated as regular income of the assessee and cannot be claimed as corpus nature which will lead to large scale manipulation between trusts

M/S. BHAVASAR KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 ;] (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section

M/S. BHAVASAR KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), HUBBALLI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 ;] (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section

M/S. BHAVASAR KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 ;] (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section

RAITHARA ARECANUT MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BHADRAVATHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1775/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vasant Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT
Section 60Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that banking

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 226/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 223/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 224/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 225/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

iia) should automatically be allowed. Since the depreciation under section 32(1)(i) is allowed in the present case, the claim of additional depreciation should naturally be allowed. M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 22 of 29 5.9 Without prejudice, if the said disallowance is sustained, alternate relief under section 10AA should be allowed to the Assessee. Judicial precedents have

M/S. NEELADRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA MANVI, ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 477/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department (DR)
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that banking

BEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 366/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar G Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Supriya Rao O.N, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3.1 The CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of Totgar Cooperative Sales Society Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 188 Taxmann.com 282 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT

M/S. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 319/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Advocate-Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 57Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance made by the Ld.AO u/s. 80P(2)(d). 4.1 It was submitted by the Ld.AR that, the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the has been considered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.The Jayanagar Co- operative Society Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No.3254/Bang/2018 by order dated 23.07.2019, on similar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

iia) claimed by the assessee ought to have been upheld. (4) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting aforesaid addition by observing that the AO has accepted the Assessee's claim for the earlier years on this issue whereas the said assessments were re-opened on the very same issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

iia) claimed by the assessee ought to have been upheld. (4) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting aforesaid addition by observing that the AO has accepted the Assessee's claim for the earlier years on this issue whereas the said assessments were re-opened on the very same issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

24,16,559 4.1. The A.O., however, disallowed to the extent of Rs.9,37,13,729/- rejecting the claim of the assessee that the said expenses have been crystalized during the year under consideration. The details of disallowance made by the A.O. are given below:- a) Power charges - Rs.5,82,58,676/- b) Refund made to Singareni Collieries towards grade

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

24,16,559 4.1. The A.O., however, disallowed to the extent of Rs.9,37,13,729/- rejecting the claim of the assessee that the said expenses have been crystalized during the year under consideration. The details of disallowance made by the A.O. are given below:- a) Power charges - Rs.5,82,58,676/- b) Refund made to Singareni Collieries towards grade

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

2(29BA) through Finance Act, 2009. These decisions cannot be applied to the appellant's case, as there are no inputs nor there was any processing of goods. In fact the appellant offered software development as a service and had shown revenue there from in the account. In so far as section 32(1)(iia) is concerned, it covers