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.

188 results for “disallowance”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi801Mumbai627Chennai283Bangalore188Kolkata164Ahmedabad118Jaipur85Hyderabad74Pune66Raipur59Chandigarh45Cochin36Surat35Indore31Amritsar30Cuttack28Lucknow24Nagpur17Guwahati16Rajkot15Karnataka12Visakhapatnam12Ranchi8Jodhpur7Panaji7Agra7SC7Telangana4Patna3Allahabad2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Disallowance61Addition to Income60Section 143(3)57Deduction52Section 4049Section 10A32Section 153C24Section 14822Section 143(2)21Section 115J

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

disallowance of Rs.140.49 crores made by the AO under normal provisions and MAT deserves to be deleted. The submission of the learned AR in brief are summarized as follows :- i) The AO was wrong in characterizing the transaction as “colorable device” without any substantiation. The transfer of shares did not involve any tax liability and hence the question of “colorable

Showing 1–20 of 188 · Page 1 of 10

...
20
Depreciation20
Section 14718

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

disallowed 1/5TH of the total expenditure incurred towards initial public offer at the time of conversion of Brigade Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., to Brigade Enterprises Ltd., treating it to be not eligible under section 35D Page 11 of 25 of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs CIT reported

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

ITA 208/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava, CIT
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

239 as against actual interest of INR7,75,362 resulting in excess levy of interest of INR1,25,877 22. Levy of interest under section 234D - INR 5,51,170 The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D amounting to INR 5,51,170 which is consequential in nature to the above adjustments The appellant craves leave

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable to tax under

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable to tax under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable to tax under

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable to tax under

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. PAN : AAACU0564G. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.170/PAN/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.Union Bank of India Income-tax, Circle 2(1) (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) v. Mumbai – 400 021. Mangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sri.S.Ananthan, CA Revenue by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 Date of Hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 483/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 195

239 from M/s RMN Infrastructure on account of a subcontract, out of which ₹11,60,96,620 was shown as Work-in-Progress (WIP). During the current year, the work was completed, and accordingly, the WIP amount, along with the contract receipts for the year and an additional income of ₹1 crore, was offered to tax. The details of these

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 by the AO. The claim of the assessee is this that if the worker is employed on permanent basis then only because in the present year, working days are less than 300 days because he was employed after 66 days from the start of the previous year then no deduction will be available under this section in respect

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

239/–, travel expenditure of ₹ 38,146,227/–, legal and professional expenditure of Rs. 108,41,959/– and freight expenditure of ₹ 218,792,192/– totaling to ₹ 283,139,077/– was disallowed by the learned assessing officer. The learned CIT – A on the basis of the evidence in the form of invoices for each of the above 5 nature of expenditure found

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

239/–, travel expenditure of ₹ 38,146,227/–, legal and professional expenditure of Rs. 108,41,959/– and freight expenditure of ₹ 218,792,192/– totaling to ₹ 283,139,077/– was disallowed by the learned assessing officer. The learned CIT – A on the basis of the evidence in the form of invoices for each of the above 5 nature of expenditure found

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35D

Section 35D, foreign exchange fluctuations, depreciation on computer software and working out deduction u/s. 10AA as against assessee’s claims. Another issue on non-granting of foreign tax credit is also involved. Aggrieved on the DRP’s orders, assessee is in appeal and raised as many as 32 grounds. Likewise, Revenue is also aggrieved on the DRP’s directions allowing

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

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C 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 Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 37(1) of the Act for the reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure. 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed for AY 2012-13 noted

M/S TEEKAYS INTERIOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Pradeepkumar, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n a c c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation

M/S PLAYSIMPLE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/BANG/2019[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

section Page 5 of 9 234D is computed at Rs. 24,76,287/- and Rs. 11,297/- respectively. As a consequence, a sum of Rs. 1,00,82,021/- is determined as payable by the appellant. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the Appellant also submitted that the impugned payments do not constitute royalty or fees for technical services and supported

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page

M/S CORPORATE BANK ,MANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MANGALORE

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021. PAN : AAACU0564G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.S.Ananthan, CA Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 Date of Hearing : 16.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 28.03.2018 passed

M/S UNBXD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2535/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Supriya Rao, JCIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 40

239 ITR 587. Page 7 of 12 2.8 He also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs DDIT (2011) 332 ITR 340 wherein it was held that; “Use of equipment means in the context of section 9(1)(vi) to have control, domain and possession over statement