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.

214 results for “disallowance”+ Section 256(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai842Delhi765Bangalore214Ahmedabad212Jaipur200Kolkata200Chennai199Pune81Cochin81Surat64Hyderabad59Indore58Raipur52Chandigarh48Lucknow34Cuttack31Visakhapatnam28Nagpur25Rajkot24Telangana21SC20Guwahati14Allahabad13Calcutta13Agra12Karnataka9Amritsar8Varanasi6Patna6Jodhpur3Jabalpur3Panaji2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Dehradun2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 143(3)53Disallowance51Section 153C33Section 4032Section 13227Deduction27Section 92C24Section 6924Section 271(1)(c)

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 14A

Showing 1–20 of 214 · Page 1 of 11

...
22
Section 143(2)22
Transfer Pricing20
Section 234B
Section 234C
Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds No.7 to 7.3 in ITA No.1044/Del/2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 are allowed.” 47. We notice that the co-ordinate benches are consistently holding the view that the expenditure incurred on sponsoring of sports events are intended to promote business only and hence the same is allowable as expenditure. The allowability of brand promotion

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 192,57,72,764/- (Difference between Rs.200,03,24,219 and Rs.7,45,51,455). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by following the decision of the decision of the ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank reported in 78 ITD 103 wherein it was held that irrespective of the debit

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 192,57,72,764/- (Difference between Rs.200,03,24,219 and Rs.7,45,51,455). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by following the decision of the decision of the ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank reported in 78 ITD 103 wherein it was held that irrespective of the debit

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

256/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the order of assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2011 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.73,61,05,940/-, which, inter alia, included disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

256/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the order of assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2011 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.73,61,05,940/-, which, inter alia, included disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

256/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the order of assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2011 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.73,61,05,940/-, which, inter alia, included disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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 is called for. Accordingly, Grounds No.7 to 7.3 in ITA No.1044/Del/2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 are allowed.” 47. We notice that the co-ordinate benches are consistently holding the view that the expenditure incurred on sponsoring of sports events are intended to promote business only and hence the same is allowable as expenditure. The allowability of brand promotion

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and relying on the judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [(2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar.) observed

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2328/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2338/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1218/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2335/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1215/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1216/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2336/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

disallowed u/s 40 (a) (i). The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal but the dispute raised was not this that it is Royalty or not? The dispute raised was this that it is capital expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed. The tribunal held that the tribunal cannot go into this question as this is not what was urged before