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.

256 results for “disallowance”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai896Delhi688Bangalore256Chennai216Kolkata199Jaipur94Hyderabad87Ahmedabad70Karnataka66Chandigarh38Calcutta36Pune35Rajkot33Indore31Raipur26Cuttack22Surat21Lucknow18SC14Telangana14Nagpur12Cochin11Guwahati10Jodhpur7Allahabad6Kerala6Patna5Amritsar4Varanasi4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Agra2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Disallowance62Section 143(3)58Section 1137Section 14834Section 153C33Deduction29Exemption27Depreciation25Section 147

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

Section 43B(b) are not applicable to the employees' contribution. 22.The DRP erred in deleting the disallowance holding that the employees contribution towards ESI & PF had been remitted well before the due date for filing the return, without appreciating the fact that the Madras HC in the case of CIT v Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. [2003] 264

Showing 1–20 of 256 · Page 1 of 13

...
21
Section 2(15)21
Section 25020

M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORAION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 630/BANG/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/BANG/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/BANG/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORAION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/BANG/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

M/S GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORAION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3), unexplained investments in purchase of trailer and other additions. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the aforesaid orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who by three orders all dated 12.11,2009 gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

MPHASIS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1104/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowance of deduction under Section 10B in respect of on site development work sub- contracted to and income derived by the AE. 15. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

264,92,26,481 advance: 2 Addition of deferred revenue 346,02,21,726 Undisclosed income detected from TDS 3 279,40,71,311 certificates Addition of undisclosed sales on 4 916,08,87,209 account of goods: 5 Disallowances of other audit entries: 36,89,24,197 Page 8 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Disallowance of claim of deduction

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

264,92,26,481 advance: 2 Addition of deferred revenue 346,02,21,726 Undisclosed income detected from TDS 3 279,40,71,311 certificates Addition of undisclosed sales on 4 916,08,87,209 account of goods: 5 Disallowances of other audit entries: 36,89,24,197 Page 8 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Disallowance of claim of deduction

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

disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act, amounting to ₹11,54,264/- only. The assessee explained that this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 446/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

disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act, amounting to ₹11,54,264/- only. The assessee explained that this

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

section 80JJAA of the Act. 11. As regards the disallowance of additional wages in respect of new regular workmen employed in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, Sh. Salil Agarwal, the ld. counsel for the assessee has fairly conceded that increase in the number of regular workmen with reference to the existing regular workmen employed

M/S. SUJATHA NARAYANAN & ASSOCIATES,HASSAN vs. ACIT, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 51/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance. For these reasons and that the grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention

DCIT, HASSAN vs. M/S SUJATHA NARAYAN & ASSOCIATES, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 71/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1
Section 148Section 234BSection 30Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance. For these reasons and that the grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

disallowance is only in accordance withlaw. It becomes necessary to examine the exact nature of the expenditure from all these angles discussed hereinabove. To facilitate the same. additional evidences are being placed by way of details/documents on sample basis. We crave leave to file more complete details/documents before AO if the verification aspect is set aside/ remanded

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ASTRA ZENCA PHARMA INDIA LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

disallowance is only in accordance withlaw. It becomes necessary to examine the exact nature of the expenditure from all these angles discussed hereinabove. To facilitate the same. additional evidences are being placed by way of details/documents on sample basis. We crave leave to file more complete details/documents before AO if the verification aspect is set aside/ remanded

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,HOSAKOTE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 687/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

264 is that while the former can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the State the later can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the assessee. The provisions of Section 263 would lose significance if they were to be interpreted in a manner that prevented the Commissioner from revising the erroneous order passed by the Assessing