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.

1,202 results for “disallowance”+ Section 250(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,702Delhi2,607Kolkata1,565Bangalore1,202Ahmedabad951Chennai929Pune649Jaipur637Hyderabad462Chandigarh458Cochin391Amritsar307Indore277Surat277Rajkot214Raipur209Visakhapatnam202Nagpur153Panaji150Lucknow136Guwahati128Patna123Cuttack92Allahabad65Jodhpur58Agra54Ranchi47Jabalpur40Calcutta35Dehradun35Karnataka18Varanasi11SC10Telangana8Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2Kerala2Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 250108Section 80P(2)(a)74Section 143(3)66Disallowance66Addition to Income66Section 143(1)54Deduction54Section 80P53Section 43B32

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 388/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

250 of the Act. Since common issues are involved in both these ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 27 appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. Similar grounds are raised in both these appeals except figures, the grounds for AY 2014-15 are reproduced below:- “1. The order

Showing 1–20 of 1,202 · Page 1 of 61

...
Section 80P(2)(d)31
Section 143(2)24
Condonation of Delay19

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 389/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

250 of the Act. Since common issues are involved in both these ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 27 appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. Similar grounds are raised in both these appeals except figures, the grounds for AY 2014-15 are reproduced below:- “1. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

5. Levy of interest under section 234B: 5.1. The levy of interest under section 234B is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Prayer: 6.1. Based on the above grounds and other grounds adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed under section 250 to the ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

5 as under : Considering the facts and submissions, we restore the comparable to the file of Assessing Officer for examination and verification of the facts and material. (iii) Mel star Information Technology Limited margin is 5.29%. The company has made profit in the current year and not a loss making company. Whereas the DRP has rejected the company, which

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2627/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1093/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2942/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1092/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

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

ITA 84/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1091/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1090/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

250 under section 14A of the Äct by mechanically applying Rule 8D when there is no basis to reject the Appellant's claim that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income. IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 14 2.3 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO have erred

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

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

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

250 in the manner passed by him. The order so passed to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Infosys Limited Page 2 of 20 2. Ground relating to disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 2.1. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1275/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

5 of 25 under section 14A r.w. rule 8D. In support of the proposition that disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D necessitates the establishment of expenses being incurred for earning exempt income and in the absence of such connection between expenditure incurred and exempt income earned, no disallowance can be made, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 29 1.Disallowance of relief claimed under section 10B of the Act 1.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law arid in fact in disallowing the relief claimed under section 10B of the Act; 1.2 The Learned

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R
Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

250 of the Act. 4.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned Assessing officer failed to appreciate that consent cannot confer jurisdiction and even though the assessee’s authorized representative had agreed for the disallowance the disallowance ought to have been made after considering the validity to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and considering whether the entire

NADATHUR ESTATES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

5(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA. Respondent by : Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2019 Date of pronouncement: 03/05/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against different orders of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, passed u/s 143(3) and 250