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.

774 results for “disallowance”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,975Delhi1,781Bangalore774Chennai556Kolkata448Hyderabad272Jaipur257Ahmedabad241Indore199Raipur158Pune146Surat106Chandigarh84Rajkot74Lucknow56Allahabad54Nagpur50Karnataka45Visakhapatnam43Cochin40Calcutta39Agra29Amritsar25Jodhpur24Telangana21Ranchi21Cuttack18Panaji17SC16Patna16Dehradun13Varanasi11Guwahati8Kerala7Punjab & Haryana4Jabalpur4Rajasthan2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 143(3)67Section 153A52Disallowance50Deduction34Section 4032Section 14829Section 115J28Section 80P25Section 133A

KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

ITA 3061/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowed, the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act shall be provided on the enhanced profit. The assessee in\nsupport of its claim relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in\nthe case of DCIT vs. Tata Power Delhi Distributor Ltd. 176 TR(A) 200

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 774 · Page 1 of 39

...
25
Section 25022
Transfer Pricing21
ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

disallowance as relatable to SEZ units. 47. Assuming without admitting that the payments made to Infosys Technologies (China) Co Ltd amounting to Rs.262,02,26,125 are liable for TDS u/s 195, as the demand raised under section 201(1)/(1A) in respect of the aforesaid payment has been fully paid in FY 2013-14, the said expenditure should

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act not only covers amount payable as on the last day of the previous year but also covers amount actually paid. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), we uphold the orders of the authorities below and consequently dismiss ground No.2.2 raised by the assessee. 8. Ground No.3.1 - Disallowance

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2012/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 10Section 14ASection 40

200, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-clause,-- "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; "fees for technical services" shall have the same

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance of deduction expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company': would not be of any assistance to the Revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to Section

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

section 14A of the 48,04,00,000 I.T.Act r.w.r 8D. 5. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1,40,46,63,276 6. Disallowance of payments for promotion 44,33,55,403 and advertisement expenses. 7. Disallowance based on Project Spirits 54,49,10,000 Report As a result, the AO recomputed the total income

GEETHA PUNDALEEKA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

disallow the expenses for which tax was not deducted at source and/or the tax having been deducted at source was not paid to the credit of the Central Government within the time prescribed in section 200

KAWASAKI MICROELECTRONICS INC,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 40

200, such sum shall be allowed as a 8 IT(I.T)A No.1512/Bang/2010 deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause,— “royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; "fees for technical

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S W.S. ATKINS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 1083/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 10A

200, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. 11 IT(TP)A No.1083/Bang/2016 & C.O. No.77/Bang/2016 Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause,— (A) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

disallow the claim. The decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 observed that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as AAR decision in Citrix Systems reported in (2012) 18 taxmann.com 172, made no distinction between computer

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

disallow the claim. The decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 observed that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as AAR decision in Citrix Systems reported in (2012) 18 taxmann.com 172, made no distinction between computer

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

disallow the claim. The decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 observed that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as AAR decision in Citrix Systems reported in (2012) 18 taxmann.com 172, made no distinction between computer

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

disallow the claim. The decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 observed that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as AAR decision in Citrix Systems reported in (2012) 18 taxmann.com 172, made no distinction between computer