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.

28 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32A(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai118Delhi86Kolkata29Bangalore28Hyderabad21Indore17Ahmedabad13Pune11SC7Chennai6Guwahati6Chandigarh5Lucknow4Jaipur3Visakhapatnam3Calcutta2Telangana2Cochin2Cuttack1Surat1Karnataka1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 10A36Deduction22Disallowance19Addition to Income19Section 36(1)(viia)18Section 143(3)16Section 14A15Section 80I15Depreciation11

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1316/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37

disallowance referring to sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A / 10B of the I.T.Act, which are applicable to the deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T.Act also. The provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A of the I.T.Act shall apply to the exemption u/s 10AA of the I.T.Act also by virtue of sub- section (8) of section 10AA

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

Section 36(1)(vii)9
Section 54G8
Section 10B8

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3464/BANG/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

sections like 80HHC, 80-IA, etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restricting and limiting provisions like s. 80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1460/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(A)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

32A. Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly, no loss as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section

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

6 of 41 8.3 However, after considering the facts, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO’s disallowance. The ld. CIT(A) held that the requirement of employing new regular workmen for 300 days or more in the previous year is mandatory. Relying on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Texas Instruments (India

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

6 of 41 8.3 However, after considering the facts, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO’s disallowance. The ld. CIT(A) held that the requirement of employing new regular workmen for 300 days or more in the previous year is mandatory. Relying on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Texas Instruments (India

SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

disallowed the claim of the assessee for a full deduction under Section 10A for all its profits and gains from the software business of the STPI unit at Bangalore by adopting as the denominator, total turnover of the business without deducting the expenditure on delivery of software outside India although export turnover which is the nominator was computed after reducing

SRI Y C KALLINATHA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 36(1)

disallowed by the AO as well as by CIT(A). 6. At the outset, we note that an identical issue fell for the consideration in Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Page 5 of 8 CIT(A) Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The Hon’ble High Court, after analyzing the provisions of Section

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

6. Ground No.3 (3.1 to 3.3). 6.1 In the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that this ground (supra) is infructuous and is withdrawn. In this view of the matter, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Ground No.4 (4.1) - Disallowance of claim u/s.36(1)(viia). 7.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee assails

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

6 of 43 restricted to the rate prescribed under DTAA. The Tribunal has held as follows:- “4.3 The present appeal pertains to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and we noticed that, in the impugned assessment order, the AO did not discuss anything about Dividend Distribution Tax either affirming the tax paid by the assessee

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

6 of 43 restricted to the rate prescribed under DTAA. The Tribunal has held as follows:- “4.3 The present appeal pertains to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and we noticed that, in the impugned assessment order, the AO did not discuss anything about Dividend Distribution Tax either affirming the tax paid by the assessee

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

6 of 43 restricted to the rate prescribed under DTAA. The Tribunal has held as follows:- “4.3 The present appeal pertains to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and we noticed that, in the impugned assessment order, the AO did not discuss anything about Dividend Distribution Tax either affirming the tax paid by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

disallowing the same. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the company was eligible for additional depreciation as claimed and directed that the same be allowed. According to the CIT(A), under the circumstances, converting raw coffee beans which are not fit for human consumption as such to 'liquid coffee' which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

disallowing the same. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the company was eligible for additional depreciation as claimed and directed that the same be allowed. According to the CIT(A), under the circumstances, converting raw coffee beans which are not fit for human consumption as such to 'liquid coffee' which

M/S. TEXTRON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1228/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P.K. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

section in Chapter III indicates its intention that the nature of relief continues to be an exemption. Chapter VII deals with the incomes forming part of the total income on which no income-tax is payable. These are the incomes which are exempted from charge, but are included in the total income of the assessee. The Parliament despite being conversant

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

6 ITA Nos.1264 & 1352(B)/13 debts. Once a bank creates provision for bad and doubtful debt, then the deduction is allowed u/s.36(1)(viia) based on the calculation as provided in the section. It was submitted that in AY 03-04, the Assessee made a PBDD of Rs.88,30,47,000. As per the calculation provided in Sec.36

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, , BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1834/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 37(1)(vii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

M/S.FABSUN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAILUR

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

ITA 1616/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 54FSection 54GSection 54G(1)

disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant uls 54G of the Act is accordingly, confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised in this regard are dismissed. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee failed